Power and Identity in the Middle Ages: Essays in Memory of Rees Davies

POWER AND IDENTIT Y IN THE MIDDLE AGES    Photograph with permission of the Warden and Fellows of All So...

Author: Huw Pryce | John Watts

42 downloads 1009 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

POWER AND IDENTIT Y IN THE MIDDLE AGES

   Photograph with permission of the Warden and Fellows of All Souls College, Oxford

Power and Identity in the Middle Ages Essays in Memory of Rees Davies Edited by

H U W P RYC E A N D J O H N WAT TS

1

1

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford   Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With ofﬁces in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York  The Several Contributors 2007

The moral rights of the authors have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2007 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available Typeset by Laserwords Private Limited, Chennai, India Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Biddles Ltd, King’s Lynn, Norfolk ISBN 978–0–19–928546–4 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2

Er Cof am Rees Davies (1938–2005) Hanesydd a Gwladgarwr

This page intentionally left blank

Contents List of Abbreviations List of Contributors Introduction 1. Appreciations D. A. L. Morgan John Davidson 2. Secular Power and Authority in the Middle Ages Susan Reynolds 3. Heartland and Border: The Mental and Physical Geography of Medieval Europe Robert Bartlett 4. Welsh Rulers and European Change, c.1100–1282 Huw Pryce 5. Bede and the Unchosen Race Alexander Murray 6. The Early Middle Ages and Spanish Identity Wendy Davies 7. Normanizing the English Invaders of Ireland John Gillingham 8. Lordship and Society in Twelfth-century Clydesdale Alexander Grant 9. Lordship and Liberties in Ireland and Wales, c.1170–c.1360 Robin Frame 10. ‘Distinction and Diversity’: The Common Lawyers and the Law of Wales J. Beverley Smith 11. Lordship in the British Isles, c.1320–c.1360: the Ebb Tide of the English Empire? Brendan Smith 12. The Charterhouse of Cadzand and the Serendipities of Empire D. A. L. Morgan

ix xii 1 5

11

23 37 52 68 85 98 125

139

153 164

viii

Contents

13. On the Hospitality of the Welsh: A Comparative View Llinos Beverley Smith 14. Cheshire and Wales Philip Morgan 15. Crossing the Frontiers of the English Realm in the Fifteenth Century Ralph A. Grifﬁths 16. Identity and Morality: Power and Politics During the Wars of the Roses Colin Richmond 17. Public or Plebs: The Changing Meaning of ‘the Commons’, 1381–1549 John Watts 18. A Farewell Speech Rees Davies A Bibliography of the Published Writings of Rees Davies Rhidian Grifﬁths Index

181 195 211

226

242 261

264 275

List of Abbreviations AC

Add. MS. APS AWR BBCS BL CCALS CChR CIM CPR David I Chrs. Davies, British Isles Davies, Conquest

Davies, Domination Davies, Empire Davies, Lordship Davies, Revolt EETS EHR English Reports

EPNS

Analecta Cartusiana, series edited by J. Hogg, A. Girard, and D. Le Blévec (Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, Universität Salzburg) Additional Manuscript The Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, ed. T. Thomson and C. Innes, 12 vols. (Edinburgh, 1814–75) The Acts of Welsh Rulers 1120–1283, ed. H. Pryce with the assistance of C. Insley (Cardiff, 2005) Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies The British Library, London Cheshire and Chester Archives and Local Studies, Chester Calendar of Charter Rolls (London, 1903–27) Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous Calendar of Patent Rolls (London, 1901–) The Charters of King David I, ed. G. W. S. Barrow (Woodbridge, 1999) R. R. Davies (ed.), The British Isles 1100–1500: Comparisons, Contrasts and Connections (Edinburgh, 1988) R. R. Davies, Conquest, Coexistence, and Change: Wales 1063–1415 (Oxford, 1987); paperback edn., The Age of Conquest: Wales 1063–1415 (Oxford, 1991) R. R. Davies, Domination and Conquest: The Experience of Ireland, Scotland and Wales 1100–1300 (Cambridge, 1990) R. R. Davies, The First English Empire: Power and Identities in the British Isles 1093–1343 (Oxford, 2000) R. R. Davies, Lordship and Society in the March of Wales 1282–1400 (Oxford, 1978) R. R. Davies, The Revolt of Owain Glyn Dwr ˆ (Oxford, 1995) Early English Text Society English Historical Review English Reports. King’s Bench Division, 1378–1865, lxxii–cxxii, ed. M. A. Robertson and G. Ellis (Edinburgh and London, 1907–11) English Place-Names Society

x Foedera Gir. Camb. Op. Glasgow Reg. IHS JMH JRSAI Kelso Lib. MGH Monasticon Newbattle Reg. NHI, ii NLI NLW ODNB

OPS Paisley Reg. P&P PBA PRIA PRO Rec. Caern. RMS, i RO Rot. Parl. RP RRS, i

List of Abbreviations Foedera, Conventiones, Litterae etc., ed. T. Rymer, 4 vols. in 7, revd. edn. (Record Commission, London, 1816–69) Giraldi Cambrensis Opera, ed. J. S. Brewer, J. F. Dimock, and G. F. Warner, 8 vols. (RS, London, 1861–91) Registrum Episcopatus Glasguensis, ed. C. Innes, 2 vols. (Bannatyne Club, 75: Glasgow, 1843) Irish Historical Studies Journal of Medieval History Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland Liber S. Marie de Calchou, ed. C. Innes, 2 vols. (Bannatyne Club, 82: Edinburgh, 1846) Monumenta Germaniae Historica W. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, ed. J. Caley, H. Ellis, and B. Bandinel, 6 vols. in 8 (London, 1817–30) Registrum S. Marie de Neubotle, ed. C. Innes (Bannatyne Club, 89: Edinburgh, 1849) A. Cosgrove (ed.), A New History of Ireland II. Medieval Ireland 1169–1534 (Oxford, 1987) The National Library of Ireland, Dublin The National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth H. C. G. Matthew and B. Harrison (eds.), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 60 vols. (Oxford, 2004), also published online at http://www.oxforddnb.com/ Origines Parochiales Scotiae, ed. C. Innes et al., 2 vols. in 3 (Bannatyne Club, 97: Glasgow, 1850–5) Registrum Monasterii de Passelet, ed. C. Innes (Maitland Club, 17; Glasgow, 1832) Past and Present Proceedings of the British Academy Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy The National Archives: Public Record Ofﬁce, London Registrum vulgariter nuncupatum The Record of Caernarvon, ed. H. Ellis (Record Commission, London, 1838) Registrum Magni Sigilli Regum Scotorum, i, ed. J. M. Thomson et al., revd. edn. (Edinburgh, 1912) Record Ofﬁce Rotuli Parliamentorum (London, 1783) Rolls of Parliament Regesta Regum Scottorum, i: The Acts of Malcolm IV, ed. G. W. S. Barrow (Edinburgh, 1960)

List of Abbreviations RRS, ii RS SHR SR THSC TRHS VCH W. WHR

Regesta Regum Scottorum, ii: The Acts of William I, ed. G. W. S. Barrow (Edinburgh, 1971) Rolls Series Scottish Historical Review Statutes of the Realm, ed. A. Luders et al., 11 vols. (London, 1810–28) Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion Transactions of the Royal Historical Society Victoria History of the Counties of England, ed. H. A. Doubleday et al. (London, 1900–) Welsh The Welsh History Review

xi

List of Contributors Robert Bartlett, Wardlaw Professor of Mediaeval History, University of St Andrews John Davidson, formerly Head of Department and Senior Lecturer in History, University of Wales, Aberystwyth Wendy Davies, Pro-Provost, European Affairs, and Professor of History, University College London Robin Frame, Emeritus Professor of History, University of Durham John Gillingham, Emeritus Professor of History, London School of Economics Alexander Grant, Reader in Medieval British History, Lancaster University Ralph A. Grifﬁths, Emeritus Professor of Medieval History, University of Wales, Swansea Rhidian Grifﬁths, Director of Public Services, The National Library of Wales Alexander Murray, Emeritus Fellow, University College, Oxford D. A. L. Morgan, London Philip Morgan, Senior Lecturer in History, University of Keele Huw Pryce, Professor of Welsh History, University of Wales, Bangor Susan Reynolds, Senior Fellow, Institute of Historical Research, London Colin Richmond, Emeritus Professor of History, University of Keele Brendan Smith, Reader in History, University of Bristol J. Beverley Smith, Emeritus Professor of Welsh History, University of Wales, Aberystwyth Llinos Beverley Smith, formerly Senior Lecturer in Medieval Welsh History, University of Wales, Aberystwyth John Watts, Fellow and Tutor in History, Corpus Christi College, Oxford

Introduction Huw Pryce and John Watts

This book was originally intended as a festschrift for R. R. Davies, to celebrate his distinguished work as a medieval historian and, more generally, as a dedicated champion of history and the historical profession. Sadly, however, he did not live to see the volume come to fruition, although he was told that it was under way and saw a copy of the proposal, as well as versions of a few of the essays, before his death. The present publication is therefore offered as a tribute to his memory, and aims to convey something of Rees Davies as an individual as well as to engage with his scholarly legacy. Given the need to keep the volume within manageable proportions, it was clearly impracticable to commission essays from all the scholars who might have wished to contribute. The contributors assembled here have been drawn from Rees’s colleagues, students, and others who worked in the same areas as him or who shared similar approaches, and represent an attempt to achieve a balance between the diverse strands of his extensive historical interests, which encompassed medieval Europe as a whole, with an emphasis on Britain and Ireland—especially from a comparative and integrative perspective—and, more particularly still, of course, on Wales.¹ Fittingly for a scholar whose work did so much to illuminate the interactions between the Welsh and the English in the medieval period, Rees’s education and career took him back and forth between England and Wales.² His roots lay ¹ Our thanks go to Cliff Davies and Ralph Grifﬁths for valuable advice and help in the initial planning of this volume, as well as to all the contributors for their forbearance with our editorial queries and suggestions. Unfortunately, Glanmor Williams and Patrick Wormald, who had respectively agreed to write an appreciation of Rees and an essay, ‘Continental and Atlantic Isles: The Parting of the Ways’, focusing on Britain and Ireland from the mid-eighth to mid-eleventh century, died before being able to submit their contributions. ² For further biographical details see, in addition to the appreciations and Rees’s retirement speech in this volume, the obituaries in The Independent, 23 May 2005 (J. Beverley Smith and Llinos Beverley Smith), The Daily Telegraph, 25 May 2005, The Guardian, 26 May 2005 (John Watts), and The Times, 9 June 2005, as well as the following tributes: Antony Carr, ‘Hanesydd y Gwrthryfel’, Barn, 510–11 (Gorffennaf/Awst 2005), 68–9; A. Lloyd Hughes, ‘Emeritus Professor Sir Rees Davies (1938–2005)’, Journal of the Merioneth Historical and Record Society, 14: 4 (2005), 277–81; Emrys Jones, ‘Sir Rees Davies (1938–2005)’, THCS 2004, n.s. 11 (2005), 231–2; Brynley

2

Introduction

ﬁrmly in the Welsh-speaking society of rural Merioneth. Born in Llandderfel on 6 August 1938 and brought up from the age of 3 on a farm near the village of Cynwyd—an area he described as ‘Glyndwr ˆ country’—his talents were fostered at the Boys’ Grammar School, Bala. Rees then went to read History at University College London, where he graduated in 1959, before embarking on research at Oxford under the supervision of K. B. McFarlane for a doctoral thesis, ‘The Lancaster and Bohun and Lordships in Wales in the Fourteenth and Early Fifteenth Centuries’. After a short period as Assistant Lecturer in History at University College, Swansea (1961–3), he returned to UCL as a Lecturer and remained there until his appointment as Professor of History at University College of Wales, Aberystwyth in 1976. Almost two decades later, however, Rees left Wales once more to take up the Chichele Chair of Medieval History and a Fellowship of All Souls College in Oxford (1995–2004). He retired a year early owing to poor health and died of cancer on 16 May 2005. By the end of his life Rees had received numerous awards and honours that provided ample recognition of his exceptional talents, including election as a Fellow of the British Academy (1987), the Wolfson Literary Award for History (1987), a British Academy Wolfson Professorship (1993–5), CBE (1995), Honorary D.Litt. from the University of Wales (2001), and knighthood (2005). Throughout his career his achievements were underpinned by a steadfast commitment to history as a humane subject whose study was, Rees believed, essential for any society that sought to understand its place in the contemporary world. This commitment was reﬂected not only in his own scholarship and teaching but also in a willingness to promote—and, if necessary, vigorously defend—the cause of history both within the academic community and more widely in the public domain, notably as convener of the History at the Universities Defence Group (1991–2) and as an innovative President of the Royal Historical Society (1992–6); the same is true of his service as chairman of the Welsh National Curriculum Committee for History (1989–91) and of the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales (1995–2005). As these last examples show, Rees’s contribution to the wider arena of historical scholarship was complemented by a concern to ensure that an understanding of the past occupied a central place in the cultural and educational life of his native country, a concern also demonstrated by his publications in Welsh: these were aimed at a general readership that extended beyond the ranks of professional historians, and included several public lectures as well as a short and compellingly written volume on the revolt of Owain Glyndwr. ˆ

F. Roberts, ‘Syr Rees Davies’ [tribute given at Rees’s funeral, Capel y Morfa, Aberystwyth, 21 May 2005], ibid., 232–6; Rhidian Grifﬁths, ‘Yr Athro Syr Rees Davies (1938–2005): Teyrnged Bersonol’, Y Traethodydd, 161 (Ionawr 2006), 9–14; Ralph A. Grifﬁths, ‘Obituary: Sir Rees Davies (1938–2005)’, WHR, 23 (2006–7), 158–63.

Introduction

3

It was as an interpreter of Glyndwr ˆ that Rees was perhaps best known in Wales. Yet this was just one facet of his contribution as a historian, who, from his earliest published essays in the 1960s onwards, demonstrated a rare gift for combining empirical depth with conceptual boldness and sophistication. During the ﬁrst half of his career Rees’s work focused primarily on Wales, and this continued to be a major interest throughout. His speciﬁc concern with the Marches, however, meant that, from the start, Rees ranged broadly across both Welsh and English history. His work was also informed by awareness of a wider European context and it dealt with questions that were relevant to other European societies—as he put it in an address on Welsh history towards the end of his life, ‘small country, large issues’. An important clue to his broad, comparative approach, as well as his emphasis on the importance of historiographical reﬂection, is provided by the subject of two early essays: Marc Bloch. An abiding concern with mentalities—be they those reﬂected in medieval Welsh literature or law (for example, the persistence of the bloodfeud), or, to take a prominent theme from the 1990s onwards, notions of national identity—is a further point of connection with Bloch and other Annales historians. In its ambitious aim of analysing society in the round and the ways in which lordship was exercised in it, Rees’s ﬁrst book, Lordship and Society in the March of Wales 1282–1400 (1978), tackled big issues; but it did so within a speciﬁc context of foreign conquest and settlement and the interaction of different peoples, another key theme of his work, which was also represented, of course, in his lively and penetrating synthesis of medieval Welsh history, Conquest, Coexistence, and Change: Wales 1063–1415 (1987). From the mid-1980s, moreover, Rees began to explore this and other major themes, including the construction and articulation of identity, in the broader geographical space of Britain and Ireland as a whole, as shown by his Wiles Lectures, Domination and Conquest (1990), his Presidential Addresses to the Royal Historical Society, and his Ford Lectures, The First English Empire: Power and Identities in the British Isles, 1093–1343 (2000). The subtitle of the last of those works has inspired the title of the present volume, encapsulating as it does two major strands running through Rees’s publications. While the contributors have approached the task of opening out themes and issues in Rees’s work in different ways, some offering broad problemfocused discussions, others using case studies to discuss a particular problem, all have written essays with broad implications. In addition, all the contributions are historiographically situated—thus, while those of John Gillingham and Wendy Davies are the most explicitly historiographical, this emphasis runs through the volume as a whole (with Alexander Murray, Alexander Grant, and Philip Morgan in particular also highlighting the role of medieval historical narratives in constructing identities). In addition, not only do all the essays address issues relating to the themes of power and identity but many explore connections between the two. Robert Bartlett, for instance, considers perceptions of the relationship between economic, political, and cultural heartlands and regions

4

Introduction

on their peripheries, while Susan Reynolds notes that growth in bureaucratic government from the twelfth century helped to preserve distinct ethnic identities rather than integrate these into a single political unit, as had happened earlier in the middle ages. The part played by native Welsh culture in shaping the attempts of Welsh rulers to develop their power in an age of Anglo-Norman conquest is explored by Huw Pryce, while Philip Morgan looks at the mis-match between narratives of Cheshire identity that emphasized Anglo-Welsh conﬂict and the peaceful coexistence that obtained in practice. Among the later essays, D. A. L. Morgan discusses patronage of the Carthusians as a somewhat paradoxical expression of cosmopolitan culture and identity during the Hundred Years War between England and France, while Colin Richmond explores notions of individual identity and morality during the Wars of the Roses, and John Watts considers the political implications of the changing meaning of the term ‘commons’. The discussions of law and jurisdiction by Robin Frame and J. Beverley Smith likewise point up links between structures of authority and the articulation of distinctive legal frameworks and identities. Several of the contributors adopt a comparative perspective. Some offer wideranging surveys of a particular theme: Susan Reynolds and Robert Bartlett are notable cases in point, as is Brendan Smith in his discussion of political change across Britain and Ireland in the fourteenth century, while Ralph Grifﬁths compares the different nature and extent of immigration by the Welsh, Scots, and Irish into late medieval England. Others use comparison as a way of reexamining and re-contextualizing developments in speciﬁc geographical areas: this is true, for example, of Robin Frame’s comparing of Ireland with Wales, Huw Pryce’s exploration of some of the issues involved in trying to look at Wales from a European perspective, and Llinos Beverley Smith’s study of hospitality in later medieval Wales. In addition, many of the essays—Bartlett, Frame, Grant, P. Morgan, Murray, Pryce, B. Smith, J. B. Smith, and Ll. B. Smith, together with Gillingham’s historiographical discussion—are concerned with the interaction of ‘European’ (or English) inﬂuences and ‘native’ (or Celtic) societies. Such, in brief, are some of the themes and topics addressed in the following essays. However, in a volume dedicated to his memory, it is only appropriate that Rees Davies should have the last word. His retirement speech not only provides valuable autobiographical testimony but also reminds us of the wit, generosity, and lack of self-importance that characterized the man. For those fortunate enough to have known him personally, it will no doubt evoke memories of a much-missed colleague, teacher, and friend.

1 Appreciations I

D. A. L. Morgan

In 1956 Rees went up, not to Jesus College Oxford but to University College London. He came to feel thankful for that decision, and for the rest of his life, intermittently at least, Bloomsbury, if not ‘home’, was scarcely an ‘away’ ﬁxture. Membership of the Welsh Society and the Methodist Society no doubt eased the usual adjustment problems in such a rite de passage; a ﬁrst-year Italian language-course and applications for vacation grants in aid of travel abroad show a readiness to explore new possibilities. ‘Mr Davies, your enunciation is deplorable’ was the comment elicited when the ﬁrst essay was read aloud; since the essay also received the ﬁrst of a steady series of alphas, we may presume that other grounds of criticism were not apparent. At that date, the pedagogic ‘system’ of UCL had reached a delicately calibrated stage of its development, which acknowledged a duty to alert students to the requirements they would face at the end of three years in a ﬁnal examination, while taking care to eschew the dangers of over-teaching and excessive specialization. ‘Constitutional documents’ with the economic historian Arthur Taylor must have offered unusual insights; and the practice of not being required to attend an essay-class in the chosen period of European history before sitting the examination was evidently judged a suitable challenge to self-help. Stimulating, too, was the opportunity to listen to the lectures of such members of what the then Provost of the College had been known to call ‘the professorial luncheon club’ as Gustaaf Renier (author of The English: Are they human?), whose 2.00 p.m. lecture-notes often consisted of a copy of the day’s Times, an infallible trigger to a cascade of exempliﬁcations of the doctrine that opinion was free but facts were expensive. In the interstices of this liberal regimen, Rees’s interests in matters medieval were fostered and sharpened by Geoffrey Barrow and Christopher Holdsworth; his choice of the Richard II Special Subject took him to Westﬁeld College, where the subject had recently been imported with the arrival from Somerville of May

6

D. A. L. Morgan and John Davidson

McKisack. Well before the impressive First Class degree result was achieved, arrangements were busily in train for the future. ‘Yes, I certainly agree with you that as a general rule it could be a great mistake for a medievalist, even if Welsh, to start his postgraduate work by tackling Welsh history . . . I’d have thought that the best thing would be to start on an English subject connected with Wales, and to transfer to more purely Welsh history later.’ So guided by advice from his former colleague Ralph Davis, the Head of Department—having also canvassed the preferences of the candidate himself—jotted down in his notes: ‘fourteenth- or ﬁfteenth-century administrative or social history—not too purely administrative’. By December 1958 admission as a postgraduate to Merton with supervision at Magdalen by Bruce McFarlane had been agreed. Having so launched ‘the ablest undergraduate we have had in the Department since the war’, his UCL and intercollegiate mentors not surprisingly kept a watchful eye on how the voyage proceeded. They had to be vigilant, for the pace was rapid, and much ﬁnesse was called for in navigating the twists and turns set in motion by the anticipated Robbins Report. Having in 1960 strongly supported his appointment as Assistant Lecturer at Swansea, Alfred Cobban had the good sense two years later to handle the question of his return to UCL with straightforward if single-minded insistence that the two departments must reach an agreed decision based on their judgement of Rees’s best interests. The new post of Assistant Lecturer which Rees took up at UCL in 1963 was carefully tailored. Its teaching duties fell ‘primarily in European history’: ‘I expect you would agree’, wrote Cobban, ‘that Wales could more correctly be described as part of Europe than as part of England.’ And it was combined with service for ten years, ﬁrst as Assistant Editor (1963–7), then as Review Editor 1967–73) of History, the journal of the Historical Association, transformed in those years under Cobban’s editorship as a notably lively and widely read vehicle of current scholarship. The Departmental Ofﬁce took on the style of a cottage industry which knew nothing of ‘social hours’ of employment, in which the masterful troika of Editor, Assistant Editor, and not least the Editor’s wife, wielding scissors, paste, string, and ample quantities of sturdy brown paper, dispatched review copies and a ﬂood of correspondence to keep up with the demands of a non-stop three-times-a-year publication schedule. On top of such ‘moonlighting’ came the increasing demands of a system expanding in staff and student numbers, and seized by an overdue awareness of the need (or at least the expectation) for ‘syllabus reform’, which in the federal University of London was necessarily addressed twice over, at both a collegiate and an intercollegiate level. As Admissions Tutor, Departmental Tutor (1967–70), and Secretary to the intercollegiate Board of Studies in History (1973–5), Rees was fully involved in these protracted debates, always with a clear focus on whether or not the nostrums of the moment would further the practical efﬁcacy of whatever teachers proposed to inﬂict on students. His gifts as a facilitator of the real interplay of academic community were manifest.

Appreciations

7

Throughout all this, his concentration never wavered from the driving impulse of scholarship. In 1964 the process of conﬁrmation of Assistant Lecturer appointments required testimony to research activity; it was provided thus: ‘I think it might be said that Davies’ progress is delayed by his conscientious determination to get everything right. The answer is that his results justify his thoroughness. What he has done is of exceptionally high quality. I doubt if I have ever had to supervise a better piece of work.’ The thesis was completed in 1965; during the following decade, while it was re-worked into Lordship and Society in the March of Wales, sixteen articles appeared, several constituting a preliminary agenda of topics for later attention (Owain Glyndwr, ˆ colonial Wales, race-relations . . . ). To their readers, the only surprise at his move to a chair in 1976 was that it had not happened earlier; when it came, it was to a chair in History tout court, in proper recognition of the intellectual range of one whose engagement in his earliest writings with the ideas of Marc Bloch had been instilled by that taste for ‘not too purely administrative’ social history, and encouraged by teaching in a comparative European perspective. That the 1976 appointment took him back to Wales was no more surprising. The London Welsh community had indeed proved sustaining: marriage and family life were its fruits, and from time to time the UCL common room would be the sounding-board for a melliﬂuous ﬂow of Welsh conversation with some expatriate colleague. But no doubt limitations made themselves felt: in my own case, I fear, a certain déraciné unresponsiveness to the atavistic strains of the Welsh harp may have disappointed—and so the call to Aberystwyth, though delayed, was answered.

II

John Davidson

Rees Davies arrived in Aberystwyth in 1976, a young historian of medieval Wales, highly esteemed by his fellow Welsh historians. In 1995 he left, rich with honours, to take up the Chichele chair of medieval history in Oxford. In the course of his nineteen years in Aberystwyth, Rees completed his ﬁrst three major books and much else besides. His scholarly reputation grew and extended rapidly from the early 1980s onwards. Recognition followed: a Leverhulme award in 1983–4, FBA in 1987, Wolfson History Prize in the same year, culminating in the British Academy Research Professorship in 1993. With wider recognition came increasing and demanding obligations to the profession and to the wider public. Unlike some whose research careers and reputation establish them as major ﬁgures in the wider world of UK history, Rees’s commitment to his home

8

D. A. L. Morgan and John Davidson

department, and to Aberystwyth, was sustained and signiﬁcant. He was Head of Department from 1976 until 1992, with occasional assistance from Acting Heads, particularly during the exceptionally demanding period when he was Vice-Principal of the College from 1988 to 1991 and Chairman of the Welsh National Curriculum Committee for History from 1989 to 1991. Rees was a sceptic who questioned received wisdom, whether about the past or the present. He was uneasy with ideologues, with intellectual systems builders, and with those who proposed supposedly radical solutions to complex problems. He disliked a good deal of what happened to Higher Education in the late 1980s and 1990s, and set out his grounds in an article in the Welsh Journal of Education in 1995. As Chairman of the History at the Universities Defence Group he made many of these points publicly, particularly in relation to the impact of ‘audit culture’ and the mechanistic, bureaucratic perversions of teaching quality assessment. As Vice-Principal of the College, he was caught up in the world of institutional policy-making. It was fortunate that his term of ofﬁce coincided with the early years of K. O. Morgan’s Principalship, a period of optimism and renewed expansion in which stresses that re-emerged in the mid-1990s were masked. Rees understood the problems that faced a small university that was teaching, and seeking research income, over a broad spread of disciplines. Some of what he argued for, in particular the radical reduction in the number of separate departments, including the amalgamation of History and Welsh History, came to pass after his period of ofﬁce, albeit as a result of ineluctable external pressure and bureaucratic logic, rather than on the intellectual, academic grounds that Rees argued. He was an exceptionally loyal, conscientious, and effective holder of what is a difﬁcult and thankless ofﬁce. Even as Vice-Principal Rees increased the range of his friends, particularly among the scientists, and did not add to the number of his enemies. That is true of few who hold high administrative ofﬁce. Rees’s impact on the Department of History was more intimate and lasting. He encountered Aberystwyth History in seeming good heart, with seventeen members of staff in History, and six in the separate Department of the History of Wales. The graduating classes in 1977 and 1978 were the largest for many years and those numbers would not be reached again until the expansion of the early 1990s. The honours syllabus still bore the stamp of the Manchester model that R. F. Treharne had brought with him in 1929, with its broad surveys of British and some European history, Political Theory, and a two-paper and dissertation special subject that dominated the ﬁnal year. Even so, it had been knocked about a bit—by the pressure of increased numbers of honours students after the abolition of the pass degree in 1967; by the need to incorporate a broader range of choice; and by the enthusiasm of younger members of staff for innovation in methods of teaching. While it still worked—the three ﬁrsts awarded in 1977 were among the best ever achieved—the syllabus of the early 1970s was a cumbersome beast that lacked clear structure or rationale, and tolerated marked variations in practice.

Appreciations

9

Between 1976 and 1981 the syllabus was completely redesigned, after lengthy departmental discussion. This was time consuming, but it was also absorbing and, at its best, particularly in the design of the multi-teacher course on Historiography, both intellectually challenging and enjoyable. It was not done by dictat from the top; but the animating intelligence, the prime mover on the major issues, was Rees. The central principles were pedagogic, pastoral, and intellectual. Tutorial teaching and the discipline of regular essay writing should be at the centre of students’ experience in all three years. All single honours students should follow a core course on ‘Historians and the Writing of History’ that straddled the two years of the honours course. Rees’s scepticism of the high importance of the special subject did not convince its entrenched defenders and it remained in its central position until, much later, it was diminished by the constraints of semesters and modularization. Other courses were chosen from a wide range of options so arranged that students were obliged to follow a range of courses, different, not just chronologically, but geographically and in style and approach. Much has changed since the early 1980s, when the reformed curriculum was ﬁrst put in place. The continuities are clear. The core historiography course remains, though a good deal changed in ways that Rees might not have entirely approved; only Rees and, in his very different style, Edmund Fryde, were able to give the course the chronological depth that Rees valued. But, despite the pressures of the times, the department retains the commitment to individual students, to small group teaching, and to essay tutorials that Rees so valued. The syllabus continues to be marked by breadth of coverage and by intellectual ambition. Many others have contributed to that outcome over now more than a quarter of a century. Rees set the department down those roads. Rees was so effective an advocate of syllabus reform because he was himself such a splendid teacher. He enjoyed teaching and he enjoyed the company of students. They knew that, and responded to what were demanding courses, with exacting standards, and forceful, though legible, response to written work. The popularity of Rees’s teaching in both English and Welsh sustained demand for, and commitment to medieval history that has been maintained since. Rees taught no Welsh History courses, nor did the other historians of Wales who happened to be in the Department of History. But Rees’s commitment to the history of Wales, the involvement of the Department of Welsh History in planning and sustaining the new syllabus, and the growing collaboration between the departments in the matter of teaching in the Welsh language blurred the boundaries and eased the way for the establishment of the new Department of History and Welsh History in 1994. Though the numbers of Aberystwyth postgraduates equipped for research in medieval history was small, Rees was an excellent supervisor. Responsive to the demands of research assessment, he secured, together with Llinos Smith, a major ESRC award to construct a database of the Dyffryn Clwyd Court rolls that enlivened the department and provided valuable postdoctoral experience for a group of young medievalists.

10

D. A. L. Morgan and John Davidson

Rees was a private man rooted in place and family, most at ease in the company of the circle of Welsh-speaking friends that Aberystwyth provided. He was also an open, accessible colleague, completely free of the haughty self-regard for which Aberystwyth professors had once been renowned. He was the kindest of men, a splendid listener, entertaining in company, and full of concern for his colleagues. He was also a demanding head of department. His prodigious capacity for sustained hard work, his ability to maintain the pace of research and publication despite an above-average teaching load and the intrusive demands of departmental and college administration, set a standard almost impossible for others to match. His disappointment and reproof were gently delivered; a slight froideur, a sharper edge to the voice, but none the less effective. Rees was not at ease, either intellectually or personally, with fashionable ideas of academic leadership or management. Why should academics need to be managed to do what was their plain duty? But by the force of his example and by the spur of his intellectual concern, he changed the Aberystwyth department, possibly more than he himself recognized, and overwhelmingly for the better.

2 Secular Power and Authority in the Middle Ages Susan Reynolds

Discussions of secular government and politics in the middle ages have often focused more on power than authority, and sometimes on power in its crudest form: violence. This essay will argue that the power of medieval rulers, whether kings or the kind of lords who particularly interested Rees Davies, however arbitrary and violent it may look in the sources we have, always depended to a large extent on being perceived as legitimate. It was, in other words, not merely power but legitimate authority, which, for the sake of brevity I shall call simply authority.¹ Power and authority may be hard to distinguish in practice: while holders of power in any human society tend to claim some sort of legitimacy, authority itself generally seems to need to be backed by coercive power. It is no part of my argument that authority is intrinsically non-violent and therefore good, while power may be violent and therefore bad. Authority, as well as power, can be oppressive, can be abused, and can corrupt its holder. What I maintain is that in any society many people accept and internalize the authority of their society’s social and political order so that its rulers do not need to coerce most of them for most of the time. This seems to happen even in societies in which authority appears to an outside observer hopelessly illegitimate, while in societies that call themselves democratic it probably depends more on its members being taught that it is legitimate than on their right to cast a vote periodically. I start by trying to identify, as far as is possible in a brief essay, the principal sources of authority on which secular government in the middle ages seems to have relied. Calling medieval government traditional or patrimonial, even if one modiﬁes that by allowing a measure of legal/rational or bureaucratic development later in the period, does not do much to explain why so many people seem to ¹ R. B. Friedman, ‘On the Concept of Authority in Political Philosophy’, in J. Raz (ed.), Authority (New York, 1990), 56–91; S. Lukes, ‘Perspectives on Authority’, ibid., 203–17. I am not primarily concerned here with power as distinct from authority but found helpful M. Foucault, ‘Afterword’, in H. L. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow (eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics (Brighton, 1982), 208–26.

12

Susan Reynolds

have accepted the authority of their rulers for so much of the time, at least to the extent of not disobeying them or their subordinates in such an open way as to challenge it.² Of course, some did protest, disobey, or even rebel, and when they were crushed by force or the threat of force their submission may have been to power rather than accepted authority. In most cases, however, as I shall argue, the protests and rebellions were fairly clearly against individual acts of oppression or individual rulers, rather than the structures they represented. In so far as many people did not rebel, this suggests that medieval governments relied on a good deal of voluntary submission, which, in turn, suggests an acknowledgement, however tacit and unreasoned, of the authority of the structure, however rudimentary it might be. Some medieval historians see the power of kings and lords as originally more or less arbitrary and violent and then gradually restricted and legitimized by the inﬂuence of the Church, by noble assemblies, or by the development of more rational law—or all three. I want to argue, however, not only that secular power, however violent and arbitrary it may appear in earlier sources, always needed legitimation but that any ruler who maintained his power, whether over a kingdom or any other unit of government, for any length of time, was normally seen as having legitimate authority. That authority, moreover, did not derive only, or even mainly, from the Church, but from a combination of sources which, however much they were reﬁned, explained, and justiﬁed from the twelfth century on, were still much the same as they had been since the eighth century. I restrict my argument to Catholic Europe between the eighth and fourteenth centuries: that alone stretches my knowledge too far. What seems clear is that the authority of secular governments at every level was derived from a combination of different sources. These could be classiﬁed under the heads of Otto Gierke’s Herrschaft and Gemeinschaft, or Walter Ullmann’s descending or theocratic and ascending themes of government, but the polarities in both these formulations are, I suggest, misleading.³ In medieval Europe a legitimate government and a legitimate social structure seem to have meant government through what was meant to be a just and harmonious hierarchy—an Aristotelian monarchy rather than tyranny or, in towns, an Aristotelian aristocracy rather than oligarchy. Government in these unequal societies was the duty, as well as the right, of those at the top, whether the king of a kingdom, the lord of a village, or the mayor of a town, but was never the responsibility of the ruler alone. Both kings and other lords had obligations to those who were subject to them. Every ruler, everyone in a position of authority from the emperor or king down to the head of a household, was supposed to rule justly and according to ² Lukes, ‘Perspectives’, 207. ³ Antony Black, ‘Editor’s Introduction’, in Otto von Gierke, Community in Historical Perspective, ed. Black, trans. Mary Fischer (Cambridge, 1990), p. xxix; S. Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe, 900–1300, 2nd edn. (Oxford, 1997), pp. xlviii–li; W. Ullmann, Principles of Government and Politics in the Middle Ages, 2nd edn. (London, 1966), 23, 117.

Secular Power and Authority in the Middle Ages

13

custom. Since every unit of government was assumed to be a community with its own customs, every ruler was supposed to consult with representatives of the community about what was customary, right, and just. Part of his authority came from doing so. Not that the representatives were elected or represented the rest in any democratic (or ‘ascending’) sense. Those who had the primary right and duty to declare the community’s custom and advise its ruler were men who were respected for their high social status and wealth, and generally also for their age and the length—or supposed length—of time that their families had been prominent in the community. In a kingdom they would be its greatest nobles and landowners, together, of course, with bishops and abbots, but in a village they might well be no more than the more prosperous peasants: either way they should be consulted. Although for both normative and pragmatic reasons kings needed to pay more attention to great nobles than lords of villages did to peasants, the difference was one of degree. In neither case, moreover, was consultation of the great supposed to exclude care for the welfare of the less. It was the duty of the great men of a community to speak on behalf of the less. On important matters the wider the consultation was, the better—though there was, of course, no need to consult women, children, or servants. All this means that, though the support of the Church, its consecration of kings, and its teaching of duties of obedience to their subjects constituted an important component of royal authority, the rule of kings did not primarily or fundamentally represent a ‘theocratic theme’ of government. A good deal of the authority of all secular rulers, both before and after Christianization, came from secular sources. As Ullmann himself argued, Roman emperors had authority before Christianization and so, presumably, did the various kinds of rulers in northern Europe outside the empire. Some of these may have been little more than warlords exercising arbitrary and unstable power, and all may have gained some of their authority from association with gods, but their sacrality, like that of pre-Christian Roman emperors, may have been the product of success in war and political competence rather than purely religious sources—so far as sacred and secular can be separated.⁴ What we know, little as it is, suggests that in many areas outside the empire, as undoubtedly within it, some kind of social and political hierarchy existed that was probably taken for granted by most contemporaries. Surviving written sources about early medieval and Christian Wales suggest a rather similar pattern of warrior rulers whose varying power, though generally accepted, did not apparently owe much to the Church.⁵ Even where the Church enhanced the authority of kings, as it undoubtedly more often came to do, there ⁴ J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, Early Germanic Kingship in England and on the Continent (Oxford, 1971), 7–15; Eve Picard, Germanisches Sakralkönigtum? (Heidelberg, 1991). ⁵ W. Davies, Patterns of Power in Early Wales (Oxford, 1990), 29 et passim; Davies, Conquest, 252.

14

Susan Reynolds

is no reason to suppose that it gave them all they had. The overwhelmingly clerical bias of what was written before the twelfth century should not be allowed to obscure the information about other sources of legitimation that slips through annals, charters, and treatises written by the clergy. I suggest that the very existence of kingdoms was the most important source, or at least one of the most important. As and where kingdoms and lesser units of government became more stable and established in custom, they came to be seen as the territories of peoples who formed natural, given communities of shared descent, customs, and law. Kings were needed because peoples were perceived as permanent entities that needed rulers. Reports of the succession of kings suggest that each new king needed not only clerical approval, and increasingly consecration, but approval, if not nomination, by as many as possible of the great men of his kingdom. Though in reality the boundaries of polities changed with power-politics and conquests, kingdoms and other polities were not thought of as just the areas that their rulers happened to hold. They did not dissolve when their rulers died, even if people sometimes took advantage of an interregnum to plunder or work off grudges. When the emperor Henry II died in 1024 the people of Pavia demolished the royal palace in their city. According to Wipo’s life of Henry’s successor, Conrad II, which was written quite soon afterwards, the Pavians excused themselves to Conrad by saying that their duties to his predecessor had ended with his death. Conrad reminded them severely that a kingdom remained when its king died, just as a ship remains when its captain falls.⁶ Despite doubts sometimes cast on the story, the gist of Conrad’s reply to what was presumably the best excuse the Pavians could think of does not seem to me anachronistic:⁷ the words may be his biographer’s but kingdoms did indeed survive their kings, royal property did, in general, pass from one king to another, even after an interregnum, and any competent eleventh-century king would think that it should. The propaganda designed to lend legitimacy to the Carolingian coup d’état of 751, by which the last Merovingian was deposed, illustrates the different sources of royal authority all the better for saying not what had actually happened but what should have happened. Pippin was said to have been chosen by ‘all the Franks’. He was anointed by Frankish bishops with the approval of the pope, who later reanointed him and his sons, having in the meantime agreed with an embassy from the Franks that it was better to have as king one who exercised power than one who merely had the title.⁸ This last point mattered as much ⁶ Wipo, Opera, ed. H. Bresslau (MGH: Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum, 61, 1915), 29–30. ⁷ H. Beumann, ‘Zur Entwicklung transpersonaler Staatsvorstellungen’, Vorträge und Forschungen, 3 (1956), 185–224; T. Reuter, Germany in the Early Middle Ages c., 800–1056 (London, 1991), 286. ⁸ R. McKitterick, ‘The Illusion of Royal Power in the Carolingian Annals’, EHR, 115 (2000), 1–20 (repr. in her History and Memory in the Carolingian World (Cambridge, 2004), 133–55). On the background: P. Fouracre, ‘Cultural Conformity and Social Conservatism in Early Medieval

Secular Power and Authority in the Middle Ages

15

as the other two. Kings were supposed to be effective and in control, so as to protect their people against enemies, maintain order, and rule justly according to custom. That meant having power with enough physical force to buttress authority. Effective and powerful rulers had no need to be wary of consultation or collective judgement: they ruled through them. In the tenth century Otto I could cite judgements in local assemblies to justify conﬁscations and refer an abbey’s request for exemption from royal service to the judgement of his princes.⁹ No doubt, like other tough and efﬁcient chairmen, he expected the meeting to decide what he wanted. Because authority came from different sources, it could survive the occasional abuse. If the emperor Henry III really said that kings could change laws and had iron hands to twist the law’s wax nose, he was deliberately (perhaps with the privileged jocularity of power) claiming more than rightful authority allowed. The story, like that of 751, implies what was thought to be right: kings were meant to declare law, not decide it unilaterally. Henry got away with breaking the norm partly, no doubt, because he was talking about merely Bohemian, not German, law, just as Edward I of England got away with overriding Welsh law.¹⁰ Only kings who could not carry their great men with them as, for instance, all three thirteenth-century kings of England at times failed to do, had any reason to avoid consulting them. But though all three faced varying levels of resistance, none of them was deposed. When depositions happened, as in 751 and on three occasions in late medieval England, that did not apparently involve any wish to get rid of monarchy. The structure of authority survived. Most great subjects in medieval kingdoms seem, moreover, to have been sufﬁciently content with their own positions not to demand total and formal independence: even the rulers of once separate kingdoms in Germany seem from the later tenth century to have accepted that, whatever it was called, the Ottonian kingdom was a single kingdom with a single king. It was surely, at least in part, the solidarity of kingdoms that allowed a modicum of royal authority to survive quite long periods of ineffective government. Kings in eleventh-century France and emperors in late medieval Germany were for different reasons more or less ineffective, but in neither case did monarchy disappear. It survived partly because of its prestige and sanctity, but also because enough inﬂuential individuals and Europe’, History Workshop Journal, 33 (1992), 152–61; id., ‘Conﬂict, Power and Legitimation in Francia in the Late Seventh and Eighth Centuries’, in I. Alfonso et al. (eds.), Building Legitimacy (Leiden, 2004), 3–26; J. L. Nelson, ‘Kingship and Royal Government’, in R. McKitterick (ed.), The New Cambridge Medieval History. Volume II, c.700– c.900 (Cambridge, 1995), 383–430. ⁹ S. Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (Oxford, 1994), 411, n. 66; Diplomata Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae (MGH, 1879–), ii. 881–3 (Dip. Otto I, no. 423a). ¹⁰ Cosmas of Prague, Die Chronik der Böhmen, ed. B. Bretholz (MGH: Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum, new ser., 2, 1923), 93–4; R. R. Davies, ‘The Peoples of Britain and Ireland, 1100–1400, III: Laws and Customs’, TRHS, 6th ser., 6 (1996), 1–23, at 20–1.

16

Susan Reynolds

groups in each kingdom thought they belonged to peoples that constituted natural units of government. Kings were the archetype of rulers and were granted exceptional authority by the Church. But lesser rulers, whether or not they explicitly claimed to rule by the grace of God,¹¹ also had authority as embodying the powers that be, ordained by God.¹² Some, though in the early middle ages they might have titles that were latinized as rex, were more or less deﬁnitely outside the kind of established kingdoms that had the kind of solidarity I have discussed.¹³ Many, however, enjoyed varying degrees of independent authority over their patches within kingdoms. As time went on, most accepted their subordination to the extent of participating in royal assemblies and armies, asking for charters to authorize their titles to property and jurisdiction, and taking their disputes to royal courts. For most of their subjects most of the time, it can have mattered little whether the duke’s, count’s, or lord’s authority had been formally delegated by a king. Like royal authority, it depended at least in part on the assumptions that good order required government, and that good and lawful government meant consultation and collective judgement in accordance with custom, as well as on the due obedience of subordinates to those placed over them. Lay lords, and particularly those of eleventh-century France, have often received a bad press from historians, partly because of ideas about them that derive from political polemics of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and then became entrenched in nineteenth-century histories, along with the idea that contrasted ‘feudal’ or ‘private’ power with the ‘public’ power of the Carolingians. For many historians these ideas have been vindicated by the accusations of violence and of the oppressive introduction of new and bad customs (i.e. dues and services) that eleventh-century monastic writers, especially in France, brought against neighbouring secular lords. Power probably, as usual, corrupted some who enjoyed it. Many of the dues taken by post-Carolingian ‘feudal lords’, however, look similar to those that had been taken by Carolingian counts and their subordinates, and were probably newly imposed only on monastic estates.¹⁴ Secular lords may have been better equipped to use physical force than were ecclesiastical lords, but whether they were always more demanding and oppressive is questionable. Later, when we are less dependent on sources produced in the ¹¹ e.g., G. Koziol, Begging Pardon and Favor: Ritual and Political Order in Early Medieval France (Ithaca, NY, 1992), 29–30; D. Barthélemy, ‘Seigneurie’, in J. Le Goff and J. C. Schmitt (eds.), Dictionnaire raisonné de l’occident médiéval (Paris, 1999), 1056–66, at 1061. ¹² Rom. 13: 1. ¹³ W. Davies, Patterns of Power, 3, 10–15. ¹⁴ D. Barthélemy, ‘Il mito signorile degli storici francesi’, in G. Dilcher and C. Violante (eds.), Strutture e trasformazioni della signoria rurale nei secolo x–xiii (Annali dell’Istituto Storico Italogermanico, 44; Bologna, 1994), 59–81; T. N. Bisson, ‘The Feudal Revolution’, P&P, 142 (1994), 6–42, and the responses of Dominique Barthélemy, Stephen D. White, Timothy Reuter, and Chris Wickham, with Bisson’s reply, ibid. 152 (1996), 196–23; 155 (1997), 177–225.

Secular Power and Authority in the Middle Ages

17

churches, ecclesiastical lords seem to have aroused as many or more complaints from their subjects or tenants as did lay ones. It is hard to know how far the subjects of either sort of lord, whatever the lord’s powers and at whatever date, respected his rule as legitimate. Men of higher status within the local community, who took the lead in assemblies and in running its affairs under or alongside seignorial ofﬁcials, are perhaps most likely to have thought that the work they did and the authority they served were legitimate but, unequal as medieval society was, the gradations and overlaps of status and class make it hard to know where the boundary of status fell and solidarity dissolved.¹⁵ The thirteenth-century Schwabenspiegel may represent a fairly wide slice of those subject to local lords when it says ‘We should serve the lords for they protect us, and if they do not protect the land they are not owed service.’ ¹⁶ When local communities, whether urban or rural, secured charters to remedy their grievances, it was presumably the highest in status within them who took the lead. What they tended to complain about most were impositions that they claimed were new. What they most wanted was a measure of freedom to rule and judge themselves according to their own customs. Attitudes to authority of people at the bottom are harder to guess about. There is plenty of evidence of resistance among peasants to demands for new services and of resentment of the legal unfreedom that made demands harder to resist,¹⁷ but most of their complaints that are recorded, like those of their superiors, seem to be against abuses of the system rather than demands for its overthrow. The way that some peasants who resisted oppression by their local lords persisted in appealing to their kings, or even to the pope, presumably in the hope that they would ﬁnd justice at the top, may imply that they thought the system legitimate and distrusted only their immediate superiors.¹⁸ If so, their hopes were seldom fulﬁlled. Perhaps they appealed less in hope, and with respect for supreme authority, than in despair because the king or the pope was their last chance. In the later middle ages, and perhaps earlier, some went so far as to demand the redistribution of land or asked When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?

But, widespread as variants of this famous couplet may have been, they were sometimes interpreted in quite unrevolutionary ways. A good many peasants, ¹⁵ C. Dyer, ‘Power and Conﬂict in the Medieval English Village’, in D. Hooke (ed.), Medieval Villages (Oxford, 1985), 1–11. ¹⁶ P. Freedman, Images of the Medieval Peasant (Stanford, Calif., 1999), 60–71, 180–2 (and 364, n. 23), 296–300; id., ‘Peasant Anger in the Late Middle Ages’, in B. Rosenwein (ed.), Anger’s Past (Ithaca, NY, 1998), 171–88; R. Faith, ‘The ‘‘Great Rumour’’ of 1377 and Peasant Ideology’, in R. H. Hilton and T. Aston (eds.), The English Rising of 1381 (Cambridge, 1984), 43–73. ¹⁷ R. H. Hilton, ‘Peasant Movements in England before 1381’, Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 2 (1949), 117–36 (repr. in his Class Conﬂict and the Crisis of Feudalism (London, 1985), 122–38). ¹⁸ M. Bloch, ‘De la cour royale à la cour de Rome: le procès des serfs de Rosny-sous Bois’, in Studi in onore di E. Besta (Milan, 1939), ii. 151–64; Faith, ‘ ‘‘Great Rumour’’ ’.

18

Susan Reynolds

whether more or less prosperous, free or unfree, may have been likely to feel the kind of grudging respect for authority, provided it was properly exercised, that was expressed in the Schwabenspiegel. Sympathetic historians may be tempted to suppose that the underdogs of medieval society resented what we see as the gross unfairness of their position, even when their rulers were honest and benevolent. But even if they wanted much more than they asked for, let alone got, it seems wrong to assume that either representative democracy or any form of socialism are so obviously universal objects of desire that most or many medieval underdogs were aiming at either. The suggestion that they were seems especially weak if one considers women as candidates for equal, democratic rights. Few women before the twentieth century seem to have thought that they should have equal rights with men. In the nineteenth some who were highly intelligent and educated denied that they did. Little as I agree with medieval ideas of inequality, that analogy leads me to doubt whether most people at the bottom of society thought that they should be equal to those above them or whether medieval governments would have seemed more legitimate to their subjects if they had been more like ours.¹⁹ Perhaps, but it cannot be assumed. When local communities secured a measure of independence, they presumably started with relatively little authority deriving from hierarchy but gained some of what they lacked by having at least an initial solidarity with their subjects. Although towns were republics rather than monarchies, however, their governments look very unrevolutionary, with the rich in control and the poor wanting them to be, provided they ruled justly. Representatives of the town of Andernach in the Rhineland in the twelfth century and of York in the ﬁfteenth who took their problems to rulers outside thought that their difﬁculties would be solved by having rich men in responsible positions. This is the more remarkable in the York case where the ‘whole community of the city’ explicitly based their request for rich bridgemasters on the belief that they were all ‘one body incorporate’ and ‘all alike privileged [including any] of the commonalty’ who had never held ofﬁce.²⁰ Like the men of Andernach three centuries before, they thought that rich men were more likely to rule well. When ruling groups of townsmen provoked discontent by corruption and oppression, the usual answer was to impose stricter rules of accounting, together with the elaboration of councils and elections, rather than demand democracy and equal rights. Elections were intended less to give equal votes to individuals than to represent what were seen as the interests of the community as a whole, to maintain its solidarity, and to exclude both factions and mob rule. This is seen at its clearest in the ¹⁹ pace e.g. J. Dunn, ‘Trust and Political Agency’, in D. Gambetta (ed.), Trust (Oxford, 1988), 73–93, at 82. ²⁰ Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communities, 190–3, and ead., ‘The Writing of Medieval Urban History in England’, Theoretische geschiedenis, 19 (1992), 43–57, at 52.

Secular Power and Authority in the Middle Ages

19

rules made in 1268 for the appointment of the doge of Venice which set out eleven stages of indirect election and casting of lots. Less elaborate systems were adequate for smaller and less independent towns in which differences between rich and poor were less and there were fewer temptations for the rulers. Even so, at least some constitutions and reports of reforms convey the impression that most complaints were brought against individuals rather than against the structures of government. The weakness of this argument is that most of the complaints we know about came from the poorer burgesses or citizens, who were nearly all employers and not the poorest of townspeople, rather than from those they employed. Attitudes to government of the people at the bottom of urban society are as obscure as those of people at the bottom in the country. Whatever the beneﬁts or faults of more or less autonomous local government, it is probably wrong to suppose that local communities, even those with relatively small economic divisions, were inclined to less ﬁercely punitive methods of control than were more remote rulers. If more complaints are recorded about violence and oppression by royal or seigniorial ofﬁcials than about policing and judging by neighbours, that may be because it was neighbourhood groups that normally did the complaining. Local communities could be intolerant and harsh, ejecting poor people or not allowing them to settle and sometimes, one may guess, blaming unpopular people or new immigrants for crimes that needed to be attributed to someone. Town charters, statutes, and custumals, as well as some reports of judgements, suggest that local rulers believed as much as do modern admirers of English medieval government in what Rees Davies called ‘the smack of ﬁrm government’, even if they did not achieve it.²¹ Kings had enough sources of authority to be able to afford to be relaxed about enforcing it everywhere all the time, which was what allowed them to delegate power to lords and local communities. The government of a town or village was necessarily more intensive, at least in intention. The chief men of towns or villages, whose status was relatively near to that of their neighbours and who were liable to be embroiled in local rivalries, sometimes felt a need to smack hard. Much changed between 700 and 1400 but less, I suggest, because of fundamentally new ideas or assumptions about the authority of rulers than because of changes in the practices and powers of governance. New technologies of war induced some changes, but the most important came from new technologies of peace, and notably the literacy and numeracy that made more professional and bureaucratic government possible. Kings, lords, and other local rulers were able from the twelfth century on, in Timothy Reuter’s words, to govern ‘continuously rather than in brief spurts’ and to communicate and enforce their demands ²¹ R. R. Davies, ‘The Peoples of Britain and Ireland, 1100–1400, II: Names, Boundaries and Regnal Solidarities’, TRHS, 6th ser., 5 (1995), 1–20, at 6.

20

Susan Reynolds

with more regular effect.²² When earlier rulers, notably Charlemagne and Alfred of Wessex, had used writing to establish or extend their power, much of the authority of their written words had come from their victories in war—authority and power being as usual intertwined. As government and law became more professional and systematic, written orders came to derive authority from established structures of courts and administrations, and from the demands and punishments they enforced. All this produced new conﬂicts, along with more systematic arguments and forms of consultation to resolve them, and above all more records of everything. Historians sometimes see this as ‘centralization’ but that may be misleading if it starts, as it sometimes does, from an assumption that the centralization that mattered was that of the political units of the modern (or, in the case of Germany or Italy, early modern) world. The new methods of government and estate management were used at every level and in whatever units there were, though with varying degrees of bureaucracy and efﬁciency—the two, of course, not always coinciding. At each level more constant supervision and record-keeping tended to rigidify custom and fossilize units of government so that the sense of unity and solidarity that was one of the sources of political authority tended to become correspondingly fossilized in existing units. That may have begun to undermine the old assumption that the subjects of any ruler constituted a naturally existing people with its own customs and characteristics. In the course of one of his acute and perceptive discussions of medieval solidarities, Rees Davies pointed to ‘the lack of alignment between the units and claims of effective political power, on the one hand, and the self-perceived and self-proclaimed identities of peoples, on the other’, which, he said, has bedevilled European history.²³ He implied that the clash between them became more likely after 1000. I think that he was right and that it happened at least partly because of the new methods of government and law. New populations could still be absorbed into older regnal solidarities and myths but it was less likely to happen if, for instance, kings gave their new subjects collective privileges that were recorded in carefully preserved charters that would be respected by bureaucratic governments. This may help to explain the preservation for centuries of separate customs, languages, and even names by German towns in eastern Europe. Immigrant groups like these, along with individuals who moved into new kingdoms, however imperfect their absorption into local society, nevertheless depended to some extent on royal protection.²⁴ They were, therefore, more likely to accept royal authority and feel some regnal solidarity with their neighbours than were, for instance, English settlers in Wales ²² T. Reuter, ‘Assembly Politics in Western Europe from the Eighth Century to the Twelfth’, in P. Linehan and J. L. Nelson (eds.), The Medieval World (London, 2001), 432–50, at 433. ²³ R. R. Davies, ‘The Peoples of Britain and Ireland, 1100–1400: Identities’, TRHS, 6th ser., 4 (1994), 1–20, at 12. ²⁴ L. E. Scales, ‘At the Margin of Community: Germans in pre-Hussite Bohemia’, TRHS, 6th ser., 9 (1999), 327–52.

Secular Power and Authority in the Middle Ages

21

or Ireland, whose privileges came from their own conquering government. Some Welshmen in Davies’s Marcher lordships served their lords in ways that suggest some kind of acceptance of legitimacy, but both there and in the Principality, as he showed, it was combined with resentments that periodically turned into total rejection of English authority.²⁵ A Welsh proverb, that he told me about, said that ‘a country [which could be a small unit] is stronger than a lord’. ²⁶ That suggests a shift away from the balance of authority and obligation between ruler and community that was acknowledged in the Schwabenspiegel. It was, I suggest, bureaucratic government and record-keeping that preserved the distinction between conquerors and conquered longer than it seems to have survived in conquered territories earlier in the middle ages. As a result, the sense of being a people went on working against the acceptance of authority, rather than for it. Nowhere, however, did bureaucracy as yet enable rulers anywhere to dispense with a good deal of unpaid activity by their subjects. ‘Self-government at the king’s command’²⁷ is not only a neat phrase to describe English medieval government but applies to other parts of Europe, too, allowing for the fact that some rulers were not kings. Government everywhere still relied on local participation and co-operation, even if the misﬁt between units of government and the ‘self-proclaimed identities of peoples’ in some areas, like Wales, put collective co-operation in government under extra strain. There is some evidence that new methods of government and the conﬂicts they provoked were by the later middle ages producing new ideas about authority. Marsilius of Padua and the arguments about conciliar government in the Church; more rigidly drawn boundaries of status and new myths of origin to suit them; and developing theories of absolutism—all these may have helped to undermine some of the old assumptions. The Welsh proverb about country and lord suggests that some people had begun to separate the concepts of Herrschaft and Gemeinschaft. Some may even have begun to distinguish descending, theocratic themes of government from ascending themes. I suggest, however, that the crucial and clear polarization of sources of authority came much later. It depended on the working-out and articulation of new ideas of popular government based, not on traditional ideas of custom and law and community, but on the Rights of Man—individual natural rights independent of community or government. That still lay in the future. ²⁸ Throughout the middle ages, so far as I can see, secular government derived its authority both from the maintenance of due and lawful hierarchy, ordained in this world by God, and from what were thought of as the natural community and common customs of the governed. The two ²⁵ Davies, Lordship, 201–8, 306–16, 463, n., and id., Revolt, 43–93. ²⁶ In a personal letter. ²⁷ A. B. White, Self-government at the King’s Command (Minneapolis, 1933). ²⁸ S. Reynolds, ‘The Idea of the Nation as a Political Community’, in L. Scales and O. Zimmer (eds.), Power and the Nation in European History (Cambridge, 2005), 54–66.

22

Susan Reynolds

seem so intertwined as to make it impossible to see which mattered more. My argument has been that secular government depended as much on respect for what was then seen as legitimate authority, at least by people above the lowest status, and probably by a fair number of them, as on the use of physical force. That does not mean that I suggest that authority was always respected or that its holders could dispense with force. Force was repeatedly used to put down rebellions, although even then it may have gained extra power by being seen as legitimate: a man on a horse with expensive arms may have overawed humble rebels on foot by the signs of his status as well as defeating them by his more effective weapons. My ﬁrst contact with Rees Davies came when, as a complete stranger, he wrote a characteristically generous and enormously encouraging letter in which he said that my line of argument about medieval communities consoled him by showing that he was not entirely isolated in his thinking. After that we agreed often enough for me to hope that my argument here, none of which is really new, would have few surprises for him and that he might agree with most of it. In the past he had gently and rightly pointed out that I always miss out Wales. If I made mistakes in using his work to make some tentative remarks here about Welsh affairs, I hoped he would correct them, knowing that he would do so in the most gentle and generous way. I was right: I was able to show him what I had written before he died. His comments were, as ever, kind and constructive, and I was gratefully able to incorporate one.²⁹ ²⁹ At n. 26.

3 Heartland and Border: The Mental and Physical Geography of Medieval Europe Robert Bartlett

In his great work Conquest, Coexistence, and Change: Wales 1063–1415 (reissued as The Age of Conquest), Rees Davies expressed the desire to see ‘the history of Wales as part of the histories of western European societies’.¹ He wished both to bring the history of Wales to the attention of historians (and others) whose main interests were not particularly Welsh and also to encourage specialists in Welsh history, and the wider Welsh public, to see the story of Wales as a part of the wider European story. His desire to do these things was admirable, but the fact that he thought he needed to do them indicated a problem, and that problem was, of course, the marginalization of Welsh history, the lingering shadow of ‘the Celtic fringe’. Historians of Wales, as of Scotland or Ireland, inevitably encounter the question of what, in terms of medieval Europe, is to be considered ‘central’ (and in what sense). The patterns of medieval scholarship are not egalitarian. While a regional study of one French region, namely the Mâconnais, can establish a paradigm to be applied (and misapplied) to many other regions at many different periods, a book on Welsh history (or Irish or Scottish history) does not necessarily have an impact even on historians of England.² A story that leads us immediately to these issues concerns St Malachy, the Irish bishop and ecclesiastical reformer of the twelfth century. Malachy became bishop of Down in northern Ireland in the year 1124 and immediately began a programme of vigorous reform, intended to make the people of his diocese conform to what he called ‘Roman laws’, that is, to obey the rulings of canon law on such subjects as confession, marriage, and payment of tithes. In addition to this moral and legal crusade, he also brought something new in the way of architecture, building at Bangor an oratory of stone. ‘The inhabitants of the area’, we are told by Malachy’s contemporary biographer, St Bernard, ‘were amazed, for no building of this kind had ever been seen in that land.’ Not everyone ¹ Davies, Conquest, p. viii. ² The reference is, of course, to G. Duby, La société aux xie et xiie siècles dans la région mâconnaise (Paris, 1953).

24

Robert Bartlett

was happy, either with Malachy’s reforms or with his stone building. His chief enemy, the villain of the story as told by Bernard, supposedly protested as the squared masonry walls of the church at Bangor arose: ‘What has induced you to bring this innovation to our part of the world? We are Irish, not French (Scoti sumus, non Galli).’³ What is clear in this story is the clash or contrast between two identities and the association of those identities with place. Here, in County Down, a part of Europe that can only be called geographically peripheral, especially in the medieval period, when what lay west of it was not possible employment in Boston, but the edge of the world, we see a strong local self-awareness—‘we are Irish not French’—confronting an innovator whose models were Roman and French, which, in medieval terms, signiﬁes metropolitan, central, belonging to the core. This essay explores how the language of place, and in particular that of core and periphery, familiar in some of the social sciences, may be applied to medieval western Europe; what are the limits of its usefulness; and, importantly, what kind of idea of core and periphery medieval people themselves might have had. The core–periphery model, which has been employed by geographers, economists, sociologists, and others, regards it as illuminating to describe the territory under consideration as divided between centres of power and wealth, and poorer and often dependent peripheries. Characteristically, centres are more urbanized, more productive, have higher standards of living and, hence, attract migrants. Peripheries are less urbanized, less productive, and send out migrants. The model features very frequently in discussion of contemporary world development patterns, but has also been applied on the continental scale, notably to Europe, and at the level of individual countries, such as the United Kingdom.⁴ It is primarily a tool of social scientists considering the modern period but, on occasion, it occurs in discussion of the pre-industrial world.⁵ It is not only modern theorists who speculate on the larger patterns of human geography, for the power of place was recognized in the medieval period itself. Albertus Magnus, the great thirteenth-century philosopher, teacher of Thomas Aquinas, wrote, ‘all composite bodies derive the main part of their diversity from the longitude, latitude and other characteristics of the land . . . a place, with its powers, gives most of the particular qualities to the thing placed there . . . no point of the earth has the same powers as another . . . wise philosophers say that we should consider the powers of places like second stars’.⁶ In his view, then, ³ Bernard of Clairvaux, Vita sancti Malachiae, XXVIII.61, in his Opera, ed. J. Leclerq, C. H. Talbot, and H. M. Rochais, 8 vols. (Rome, 1957–78), iii. 295–378, at 365. ⁴ A well-known instance is M. Hechter, Internal Colonialism: The Celtic Fringe in British National Development, 1536–1966 (London, 1975). ⁵ A reasonable starting-point might be C. Chase-Dunn and T. D. Hall (eds.), Core/Periphery Relations in Precapitalist Worlds (Boulder, Colo., 1991). ⁶ Albertus Magnus, De natura locorum, II.1, in his Opera omnia, ed. A. Borgnet, 38 vols. (Paris, 1890–9), ix. 560.

The Mental and Physical Geography of Medieval Europe

25

geography is a predictive science as important as astrology—just as, say, all Sagittarians are ﬁery, so all dwellers in hot places are lecherous. ‘No point of the earth has the same powers as another’—what were the consequences and implications of central or peripheral location? To take one strand from the anecdote about St Malachy, what was the meaning of this building in stone that so stirred his enemies? Let us picture in our mind’s eye the wooden thatched houses that made up most human habitations in medieval Europe, especially non-Mediterranean Europe. In colour and texture, with their timber and reeds, their turves and moss, they would have looked very much like something growing out of the natural environment, not a sharp artiﬁcial contrast to it, more akin to the dens or nests of animals than the starkly man-made environments with which we are familiar. In such a world large-scale stone constructions stood out. They meant power and they meant Rome. The Romans of the ancient world had indeed introduced building in stone into many parts of Europe where it was unknown, and the association of Rome and stone continued after the fall of the Empire. Bede, an author who opens a rare window onto the Christian societies of the early middle ages, gives us several examples. He tells how Benedict Biscop, founder of the Northumbrian monastery of Wearmouth, ‘went to Gaul and brought back masons, who constructed for him a stone church in the Roman manner, which he had always loved’. The church was then dedicated to St Peter, the Roman saint, and had its windows ﬁtted by glaziers from Gaul, ‘a kind of craftsmen not hitherto known in Britain’.⁷ One of the things that distinguished the Roman and the Irish traditions of Christianity as Bede presents them was indeed the materials of church construction. Finán, the Irish-trained bishop of Lindisfarne, built a church there ‘which, in the manner of the Irish (more Scotorum), he built not of stone but of hewn oak and which he roofed with reeds’.⁸ When Nechtan, king of the Picts, adopted Roman rather than Irish ecclesiastical customs, ‘he also asked for architects to be sent to him, who, according to the manner of the Romans, would build a church of stone for his people, and he promised to dedicate it in honour of the blessed prince of the apostles, and that he and all his subjects would always follow the custom of the holy Roman and apostolic church, in so far as they could learn it, being so distant from the Roman nation and different in language.’⁹ King Nechtan’s response shows that building in stone was part of a package—as indeed Malachy’s opponents also realized. It was not a neutral issue of the practicalities of construction, but a choice with wider implications, implications that can be called ideological. Along with building in stone, the peripheries of Europe adopted also a set of customs, a saint, and a view on where the ⁷ Bede, Historia abbatum, ch. 5, in his Opera historica, ed. C. Plummer, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1896) i. 364–87, at 368. ⁸ Bede, Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, III.25, ed. B. Colgrave and R. A. B. Mynors (Oxford, 1969), 294. ⁹ Ibid., V.21, ed. cit., 532.

26

Robert Bartlett

centre of the world lay. This is brought out even more sharply in Bede’s account of the Synod of Whitby, which has the function in his work of the dramatic ﬁnal showdown between Irish and Roman customs, especially those concerning the celebration of Easter. St Wilfrid, the odious advocate of Rome, made the argument from the big battalions: ‘we have seen the Easter that we keep celebrated by everyone at Rome, where the blessed apostles Peter and Paul lived, taught, suffered martyrdom and are buried; we have observed that this is the practice of everyone in Italy and Gaul . . . we have learned that this is done in the whole world . . . except by these [the Irish] alone and their accomplices in obstinacy, the Picts and Britons, inhabitants of the two furthest islands of the Ocean (and not the whole of these), who ﬁght with stupid effort against the whole world.’ Colmán, the champion of Irish tradition, based his response on quality, not quantity, appealing to the sanctity and authority of his predecessors: ‘surely it is not to be believed that our most reverend father Columba and his successors, men beloved by God, who kept Easter in the same way, thought or did anything contrary to holy scripture?’ This elicited from Wilfrid another bout of geographical triumphalism: ‘even if your fathers were holy men, surely their small number from one corner of a furthermost island is not to be preferred to the universal church of Christ throughout the world?’¹⁰ Wilfrid was clearly convinced of the core–periphery model and used it in an argument that was basically about authority. For him authority inhered in the central, not the remote or peripheral regions: geographical position and legitimate power are linked. There is, of course, the indisputable sense in which locations in Europe can be peripheral, since Europe is a peninsula and a peninsula has edges. But the issue here is rather the valorization or moralization of geography. Did those medieval men and women who saw Rome and France as central and the Celtic world as remote have a case (apart from the purely spatial)? Was there, to ask an obvious question, an economic core to medieval Europe, which would include Rome and France but not the Celtic lands? The economic yardstick is not easy to apply. Even in modern times, with a rash of statistics to choose from, the identiﬁcation of an economic core is not simple. Social scientists of the twentieth century constructing such core–periphery models for modern Europe have employed a variety of criteria in their operations.¹¹ One attempt, made in the 1920s, was based on the idea of mapping the amount of mechanical energy, measured in horsepower, available at any given spot in the continent. The resulting model was a Europe centred on the Ruhr. Another, more recent, attempt took the movement of migrant labour as key, seeing labour moving from the over-populated and underpaid periphery ¹⁰ Bede, Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, III.25, ed. cit., 300–6. ¹¹ For the following see the summary in S. Rokkan and D. W. Urwin, Economy, Territory, Identity: Politics of West European Peripheries (London, 1983), 42–4.

The Mental and Physical Geography of Medieval Europe

27

to the labour markets of the core. The resulting model was a Europe centred on the Ruhr. Was there such an economic heartland in the middle ages? Given all the allowances one must make both for the absence of much statistical evidence and the localized nature of the pre-industrial economy, a good case can be made for saying that there was. And, even if it is not literally true to say it was centred on the Ruhr, it at least included the Ruhr. If one looked at western Europe around the year 1200 and drew a line from, say, Rome to Maastricht, then movement away from that line would, in general, be movement from more populous and richer regions to less populous and poorer regions. There are two reasons for this pattern. The ﬁrst is agricultural. Until the growth of extractive and metallurgical industries in the modern period, the crucial economic determinant for a region was its suitability for arable cultivation. Where the terrain, climate, and soil type were right, large grain-consuming populations could exist—as in the plains of Lombardy, the corn-growing regions of northern France, or the productive ﬁelds of the middle Rhine and Main; in the middle ages such arable areas supported dense networks of villages, dotted with large churches and the halls and residences of powerful kings or aristocrats. A remarkable fact emerges if one sets side by side a map showing the travel patterns of the itinerant German monarchs and one showing the areas in Germany suitable for the cultivation of wheat, the aristocrat of the cereal-grains—the overlap is considerable. Political power and arable capacity correlate. The roots of aristocratic and monarchical power lay in these cornﬁelds, even if kings and knights loved to go off to their peripheries, the heaths and woodlands, to indulge their passion for the hunt. Regions that were suited only to pastoral farming because of their natural conditions formed poor cousins, as the rich cousins did not tire of pointing out. One eleventh-century French writer described the wealth of the peripheral and pastoral Bretons as consisting in ‘freedom from taxes and abundance of milk’.¹² Gerald of Wales, that Paris-trained scholar of the late twelfth century, noted that the Irish ‘had not abandoned the original, pastoral way of life’. ‘For when’, he wrote, ‘human beings advanced from the woods to the ﬁelds and from ﬁelds to villages and urban groups, this race despised agricultural labour and continued the life of woodland and pasture to which it was accustomed.’¹³ Here the pastoralists are classiﬁed not simply as poor and peripheral but also backward, in the literal evolutionist sense of the term. But the Rome–Maastricht axis was not simply a swathe of good farmland. It was also, by the year 1200, an urban axis. Northern Italy, the Rhineland, and the Low Countries made up a zone where there were more towns and where town ¹² Rodulfus Glaber, Historiarum libri quinque, II.3, ed. J. France (Oxford, 1989), 58. ¹³ Gerald of Wales (Giraldus Cambrensis), Topographia hibernica, III.10, in Gir. Camb. Op., v. 1–204, at 151.

28

Robert Bartlett

life coloured society more deeply than in any other region of comparable size in Latin Christendom. There were, of course, important cities outside this region, notably in the Iberian peninsula, but nowhere else did urbanism have such ﬁrm roots and wide ramiﬁcations. The Ruhr-centred Europe of 1900 has a distant ancestry in this urban axis of 1200. One could then say that medieval Europe had an economic core in the sense just outlined. Geographic location would have consequences. The nature of one’s diet, the level of literacy, the frequency of contact with money would depend in part on central or peripheral location. But the implications for areas of life other than the economic are not a straightforward matter. Although German—or French or English—aristocrats drew their power from their cornﬁelds, arable societies were not always able to dominate the pastoral societies around them. The pastoralists, with their low taxes and excess milk, could organize to raid or terrorize and they were perhaps given an advantage by their diet, which was much richer in protein than the cereal-dominated intake of the arable cultivators, and also by a traditionally higher level of military participation among their male populations as a whole. The Vikings, Basques, or Welsh may have inhabited wet and upland terrain which could support only a limited total population, but their mobility, ferocity, and, when they could achieve it, concentration of force, sometimes enabled them to be predators on the core arable societies rather than victims. William of Tyre noticed that the Serbs, although ‘rough and undisciplined, living in the mountains and woods and ignorant of agriculture’, had plenty of dairy products, meat, and honey and were ‘bold and warlike men’ who sometimes emerged from their mountains and woods ‘to devastate the whole surrounding region’.¹⁴ Some of the advantages that pastoral raiders might possess come out in the following account of a Scots raid into England in 1327. It is written by a man from Hainault, in modern Belgium, a true representative of the central arable axis and an eye-witness who participated in the campaign on the English side: The Scots are very hardy and tough and always busy in war . . . When they want to enter the kingdom of England, they advance their army sixty or a hundred miles, by day and night, which would amaze you if you did not know their ways. For when they want to go into England they are all on horseback, except for the lowest classes of soldier, who are on foot. The knights and squires are mounted on good big riding horses, the other men of the land all on little hackneys. And they take no carts because of the mountains that they have to cross in this country, and they take no provisions of bread or wine, for their usage is such in war and so frugal are they that they survive for a long time on half-cooked meat, without bread, and on good river-water, without wine, and they do not have pots and pans, for they cook their meat in the hide of the animal, once they have scorched it, and they know very well they will ﬁnd animals in great number in the land where they ¹⁴ William of Tyre, Chronicle, XX.4, ed. R. B. C. Huygens, 2 vols. (Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio medievalis 63–63A, Turnhout, 1986), ii. 916.

The Mental and Physical Geography of Medieval Europe

29

want to go, so they carry no other provisions, each one having between the saddle and the saddle-cloth a big ﬂat stone and carrying behind him a bag of ﬂour, so that when they have eaten so much of this poorly cooked meat that their stomachs seem to them to be weak and hollow, they toss this ﬂat stone on the ﬁre and, mixing a little of their ﬂour with water when the stone is heated, they make of it a little cake and eat it to strengthen their stomach. This is the reason it is no surprise that they travel further than other people.¹⁵

The ponies, the rustling, the oatcakes, the lack of bread, wine, pots, pans, and baggage trains that the Hainaulter observed—all these gave a military edge in the right circumstances. Within a few months of the raid he describes the negotiations were opened that were to lead to formal recognition of Scottish independence by the king of England in the Treaty of Edinburgh of 1328. Perhaps the temporary sacriﬁce of bread and wine had been worth while. Another way in which politics did not simply follow economics can be seen if we consider the role of the urban axis in state formation. The wealthy urbanized zone running from the valley of the Po to the mouths of the Rhine has rarely been politically united and has not been the cradle of a powerful modern state in the way that south-east England or north-east France have been. This Rome–Maastricht zone was rather a region of minuscule principalities, ecclesiastical lordships, and independent towns. The powerful states of early modern Europe emerged in areas beyond this central core and indeed fought over it. The contrast between this central Kleinstaaterei, the land of tiny states, and the growing territorial powers around it can be seen very clearly in those beautifully produced historical atlases that show the states of Europe in different colours. Broad bands of green in France, of blue in Prussia, and so on, contrast with the astonishing and confusing kaleidoscope that results from trying to give cartographic representation to the multiple political entities of northern Italy, the Rhineland, and the Low Countries. (The abstract chromatic pattern is isolated—and the historical point made more sharply—if one holds the atlas upside down.) As in the case of the predatory pastoralists, the map of wealth and the map of political power are not simple equivalents. One of the great paradoxes of west European development is that as mercantile capitalism transcended and broke down boundaries, the formation of strong national states strengthened and accentuated them. We might then, for some purposes, imagine a concentric Europe: a politically decentralized urban axis, in the midst of a larger arable zone, where strong states often arose, surrounded by a string of pastoral societies, which might raid successfully but were themselves often vulnerable to co-ordinated offensives from the arable heartlands, as the cases of Wales or Brittany make clear, both countries eventually being absorbed by their powerful, agrarian neighbours. There was yet another layer to this onion world, for, to north and east, lay yet ¹⁵ Jean le Bel, Chronique, ch. 10, ed. J. Viard and E. Déprez, 2 vols. (Société de l’Histoire de France, 1904–5), i. 50–2.

30

Robert Bartlett

another ecology. Its place in the model can best be described by concentrating on an object: the fur hat. Fur is one of the classic products of regions of low-population density where arable farming is relatively unimportant.¹⁶ As settlement and clearance proceeded in western Europe over the course of the middle ages, it lost its own large fur-producing regions. By 1200 beavers were becoming rare even in the less populated parts of the British Isles—Gerald of Wales noticed that only one river in Wales, the Teiﬁ by Cardigan, had them and that they were rare in Scotland, though still abundant ‘in Germany and the Arctic regions’.¹⁷ It was these ‘Arctic regions’—loosely deﬁned—that supplied the furs that the wealthy wore in western Europe; in particular Russia, with its huge cold forests, was a supplier of the ﬁrst importance and the great fur market at Novgorod was frequented by German Hanseatic merchants from the twelfth century onwards. The fur trade linked core and periphery in a style similar to that of modern imperialism. Manufactured goods like cloth and pins went out, raw materials—the pelts—came in. The scale of the trade was immense. In 1405 three ships sailed from Riga, a natural focus for the riverine fur-trade, to Bruges with a cargo of 450,000 pelts.¹⁸ Western Europe was seized by the craze; one dyspeptic clerical writer described how the native people of the eastern Baltic (the fur-exporters) ‘have in abundance those exotic furs whose deadly scent has served up the poison of pride to our world; they regard them as dung, but, to our great discredit, we strive at any cost to obtain clothes of marten-skin as if they were the highest beatitude’.¹⁹ Marten was up-market. For there was a hierarchy of furs; in the early ﬁfteenth century prices at Venice ranged from 82 ducats per 100 pelts for sable; through 30 ducats for marten; 12–14 ducats for beaver; 5.5 ducats for lynx; 5 ducats for otter and weasel; to 3–4 ducats for squirrel.²⁰ What was in the forests of Russia a virtually unlimited natural resource served as a mark of wealth, fashion, and eminence in the crowded cities of western Europe—urban rebels in the town of Sens in 1380 referred to the great bourgeois magnates as ‘the fur hats’.²¹ The appetite of the fur-wearers of the core hence sustained a periphery of fur-trappers. This was a pattern that was to continue beyond the middle ages, for, after the penetration of North America in the early modern period, this aspect of the medieval system was simply extended to include the western hemisphere, with its native and European trappers, its trading posts, and ¹⁶ On the medieval fur trade see R. Delort, Le commerce des fourrures en Occident à la ﬁn du Moyen Age, 2 vols. (Bibliothèque des Ecoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 236; Rome, 1978). ¹⁷ Gerald of Wales (Giraldus Cambrensis), Itinerarium Kambriae, II.3, in Gir. Camb. Op., vi. 1–152, at 114–15, 118 (repeated in his Descriptio Kambriae I.5, ibid., 153–227, at 173, 175). ¹⁸ P. Dollinger, The German Hansa (London, 1970), 235. ¹⁹ Adam of Bremen, Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontiﬁcum, IV.18, ed. W. Trillmich, Quellen des 9. und 11. Jahrhunderts zur Geschichte der Hamburgischen Kirche und des Reiches (Ausgew¨ahlte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters, 11; Darmstadt, 1961), 456. ²⁰ Dollinger, Hansa, 235. ²¹ P. Lewis, Later Medieval France (London, 1968), 338.

The Mental and Physical Geography of Medieval Europe

31

Hudson’s Bay companies. As in many other ways, the American western frontier was a child of the medieval frontier. The patterns of farming, of town life, of trapping, and of trading in medieval Europe thus yield physical and objective patterns that can be mapped: agrarian and pastoralist, urban and less urban, fur-hats and fur-trappers. What relationship exists between such objective maps that modern historians might construct and the ideas of place that medieval people themselves had in their heads? Maps in the head and maps in the atlas are not always the same thing. A map plotting different scholars’ ideas of where ‘central Europe’ or Mitteleuropa is to be found, reveals that the area so deﬁned slews cavalierly from the suburbs of Paris to the suburbs of Odessa and from the shores of the Adriatic to those of the Baltic.²² It would be an exaggeration to say that this map reveals concepts of central Europe that do not overlap at all, but it does bring home the very different spatial visions that might lie behind an apparently objective territorial label. However, this subjective side to cartography does not diminish the general importance of maps in the modern world. They are today the fundamental tools we have for creating ideas of geographical location, the most common way modern people image their place. In the middle ages, by contrast, most people would never have seen a map. Those few that did have experience of maps would have used them and thought about them in a way very different from the predominantly practical applications of today. The maplessness of the medieval world can be illustrated by an event that took place in 839 during a power-struggle within the Carolingian dynasty. The head of the family, the emperor Louis the Pious, had alienated his oldest son, Lothar, by promoting Lothar’s half-brother Charles. In the course of negotiations between the quarrelling relatives, Louis made the following proposal to Lothar: ‘Behold, my son, as I promised, the whole kingdom is before you, divide it as you wish. If you divide it, Charles will choose his share, but if we divide it, the choice will be yours.’ The chronicler describing the scene then goes on: ‘For three days he wished to divide it up but was not able to.’ Lothar then sent envoys to his father, ‘asking that he and his men should divide up the kingdom’. Lothar would then have the choice of parts. Lothar’s envoys swore that they had failed to produce a practical division ‘for no other reason than ignorance of the territories (ignorantia regionum)’.²³ Here we have the eldest son of the most important ruler in western Europe confessing his inability to make a reasonable territorial partition because ²² See the map in A. Mutton, Central Europe (London, 1961), 3. There is a large literature on the concept of Mitteleuropa. For an introduction, which stresses the heavily political nature of the idea, and gives further reading, see H.-D. Schultz, ‘R¨aume sind nicht, R¨aume werden gemacht: Zur Genese ‘‘Mitteleuropas’’ in der deutschen Geographie’, Europa Regional, 5 (1997), 2–14. ²³ Nithard, Historiarum libri IIII, I.7, ed. R. Rau, Quellen zur karolingischen Reichsgeschichte, 1 (Ausgew¨ahlte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters, 5; Darmstadt, 1955), 400.

32

Robert Bartlett

of his ‘ignorance of the territories’. One has only to think of the scenes during the negotiations in the Bosnian war of the 1990s with their ﬂourished maps or secret maps or revised maps—maps for which people died—to see how different Lothar’s situation was. When trying fruitlessly to divide the empire, he and his men do not seem to have had as an aid a miniature two-dimensional bird’s-eye image with linear markings—a map. The kind of maps that were produced in the medieval period would not, in fact, have helped Lothar very much. The world maps that are the most impressive cartographic productions of the period have been fairly described as ‘less geographical descriptions than religious polemics’.²⁴ They are public images that encapsulate religious history and teaching, not uniform grid-based replications of territorial realities. One of the most famous medieval world maps is the magniﬁcent Hereford Mappa mundi, produced by a canon of Lincoln in the second half of the thirteenth century and saved by public appeal from being auctioned off by the impecunious canons of Hereford in the late twentieth century.²⁵ The Mappa mundi is clearly an object designed for display, being over 4 feet in diameter, and may indeed have hung behind an altar. It employs associative images of the kind found in present-day jig-saw maps for children. Some of these visual clichés are familiar: Russia is represented by a bear; Norway by a man on skis. Cities are indicated by drawings of walls and towers, which vary in size according to the importance the draughtsman attached to them—Jerusalem, Rome, and Paris being the largest in the Christian world. Obviously, on a map of this scale radical selectivity is necessary and only the most important centres can be marked. In Wales the members of this select club are St Davids, Conway, and Caernarfon, in Scotland St Andrews, Berwick, Roxburgh, Edinburgh, Perth, and Aberdeen. Two characteristics of the Hereford map are worth stressing, if we are inquiring into the mental geography of the time. First, there is clearly a drift to the fabulous as one moves away from north-western Europe. As we leave behind the mundane detail of Caernarfon and Edinburgh, we encounter a landscape of dragons, of mermaids, of distant countries where one can ﬁnd monopods, men with a single foot so huge that, if they lie on their backs, they can employ their foot as an umbrella. The East was the traditional home of such marvels and also of marvellous wealth. This was, of course, the East that was later to ﬁre the imagination of Christopher Columbus, who, for some time at any rate, convinced himself he had found it. The second point worth noting about the Hereford map is that is not based on one of the main premisses of modern ²⁴ V. Flint, The Imaginative Landscape of Christopher Columbus (Princeton, 1992), 7; on this general subject, see D. Woodward, ‘Medieval Mappaemundi’, in J. B. Harley and D. Woodward (eds.), The History of Cartography, 1 (Chicago, 1987), 286–370. ²⁵ A recent study, with full bibliography, is S. D. Westrem (ed.), The Hereford Map: A Transcription and Translation of the Legends with Commentary ( Terrarum Orbis, 1; Turnhout, 2001).

The Mental and Physical Geography of Medieval Europe

33

cartography, the principle of synchronicity, that is, the idea that a map should be a snapshot capturing the state of things at any given time, plotting the variable of space but holding the variable of time steady. The Hereford Mappa mundi does not do this. Troy still stands, the Golden Fleece is still stretched out at the head of the Black Sea. Outside the walls of Jerusalem the cruciﬁxion is taking place, while at the top of the map Adam and Eve are depicted twice, once eating the forbidden fruit and again being expelled from Eden. Higher still, above the whole circle of the world we see the future: the Last Judgement, with the saved being received by God the Father and the damned led off to the mouth of hell, located approximately on the site of modern Australia. This conspicuous, almost deﬁant, refusal of the snapshot mode is emphasized by the title that the creator of the map himself gave it. At the bottom left-hand corner he begs for the prayers of those who see cest estoire, ‘this history’ or ‘this story’. Medieval map-making was, like history, a narrative art.²⁶ In the Mappa mundi the dominant centres, as signiﬁed by size, are, as mentioned, Jerusalem, Rome, and Paris. The signiﬁcance of these three eternal cities for medieval Europeans was not identical. Jerusalem was the oddest geographically. It was both utterly central and utterly peripheral to the medieval West. It was central because of its huge symbolic burden as the Holy City, the site of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, and maps like the Hereford one place it at the centre of the world. ‘Jerusalem is the navel of the world’, as Pope Urban II supposedly said in his speech launching the crusades. He called it ‘this royal city, placed at the centre of the world . . . ’.²⁷ In the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem there was even a mark on the ﬂoor showing the exact location of the centre of the world, a spot, presumably, that visiting pilgrims could stand on just as visitors to the Greenwich Observatory today can stand with one foot in the eastern and one foot in the western hemisphere. But this symbolic centre was, for medieval westerners, hopelessly acentric. Indeed, it was clearly a ‘bridgehead’ in military terms, conquered by westerners in 1099 at great expense in men and resources, and defended intermittently in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries only through enormous efforts, collapsing ﬁnally in 1291 as the western galleys ferried the panic-stricken crusaders away from the Palestinian coast in scenes reminiscent of the helicopters evacuating the American embassy in Saigon in 1975. Outremer, ‘the land across the sea’, had fallen. The crusader states are a perfect example of the way mental geography can challenge physical geography—why did men from the Loire Valley die in Judaea? It is something as inexplicable in terms of purely rational material interests as the creation of the modern state of Israel in the same region. ²⁶ Compare the remarks of H. Kugler, ‘Hochmittelalterliche Weltkarten als Geschichtsbilder’, in H.-W. Goetz (ed.), Hochmittelalterliches Geschichtsbewusstsein im Spiegel nicht-historischer Quellen (Berlin, 1998), 179–98. ²⁷ Robert the Monk, Historia Iherosolimitana, I.2, Recueil des historiens des croisades, Historiens occidentaux, 3 (Paris, 1866), 717–882, at 729.

34

Robert Bartlett

Rome was a little different. It was still somewhat removed from the economic and political heart of western Europe, as is well illustrated by the attempt in the later middle ages to relocate the papacy to France, but it was the seat of a major institution as well as bearing both imperial and Petrine traditions. When Christian ideologues like Bede or Wilfrid drew up their ideal models of the Church, the word they used to describe them was ‘Roman’. And Rome and the Roman papacy became increasingly aggressive in their views of their own centrality. In the early middle ages, a time of relative decentralization, local liturgies and traditions had sprung up in many geographically peripheral regions of Europe. As the Roman Church reasserted itself in the eleventh century these variant traditions were brought into line. There was to be no question where the centre lay. In Spain the Mozarab liturgy that had developed in the peninsula in the early middle ages and the characteristic local script both gave way under the pressure of papal and other outside forces, being replaced by the Roman rite and Caroline minuscule of French origin. Later Spanish chroniclers, looking back, saw the 1070s as the crucial period when King Alfonso VI, who had married a French wife, presided in a far from neutral way over the struggle between the old indigenous rituals and the aggressive Roman norms. The pope was exhorting the Spaniards to follow ‘the order and ofﬁce of the Roman church, not that of Toledo or any other, but that which was founded by Peter and Paul’, tossing in, in the true tradition of Wilfrid, the argument that the other kingdoms of the north and the west already did so. Alfonso ﬁnally enforced the new liturgy by ﬁat. As one of the chroniclers comments, ‘laws go where kings want’.²⁸ It was in this same period that ‘they decreed that henceforth scribes should use the Gallican script and should give up the Toledan in ecclesiastical matters, so that there should be no division among the ministers of God’s church’.²⁹ Note the strong ideology of uniformity here—the point was to make Spain less outlandish in Roman eyes. The differences between the Roman Rite and others were, unless one is a liturgical fanatic, very small—the inclusion or exclusion of certain Latin prayers at certain points in the service—yet these conﬂicts were fought out with zeal and bitterness. Adoption of a liturgy or opposition to it really serves as a sign of identity or afﬁliation, of local cultural autonomy or recognition of central authority. The issues were small but the stakes were large. If Rome was a centre that banged its drum and insisted on its rights, Paris was a metropolis that drew all to it through an effortless and irresistible cultural hegemony. It is one of the more curious stories of the central middle ages how the French gradually outclassed the Germans, who had earlier looked more than ²⁸ Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada, Historia de rebus Hispaniae, VI.24–5, ed. J. F. Valverde (Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio medievalis, 72; Turnhout, 1987), 205–9; Chronica Naierensis, III.18, ed. J. A. Est (Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio medievalis, 71a; Turnhout, 1995), 177. ²⁹ Luke of Tuy, Chronicon mundi, IV.70, ed. E. Falque (Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio medievalis, 74; Turnhout, 2003), 305; cf. Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada (as in previous note), VI.29, ed. cit., 214: ‘de cetero omnes scriptores ommissa littera Toletana . . . Gallicis litteris uterentur’.

The Mental and Physical Geography of Medieval Europe

35

likely to create the centrally deﬁning cultural tradition of the middle ages. In the year 1000 the German Empire was the largest political unit in Europe, ruled by a dynasty with imperial aspirations, and the home of magniﬁcent manuscript illumination, ivory carving, bronze sculpture, and Latin literature, while France was a congeries of war-lords ruling from earth and timber castles. But within a century or two the French managed to shake off these anarchic and ﬂea-bitten associations and identify themselves with all that was most glamorous and innovative in the central middle ages—the crusades, the universities, new literary style, and even love. By the late twelfth century German poets were translating and adapting French models not vice versa. In the thirteenth century even the Italians claimed ‘the French language is current throughout the world and is more delightful to read and hear than any other’.³⁰ France was the special place: ‘We are in sweet France,’ one twelfth-century writer commented, ‘which alone, as Jerome says, has no monsters’.³¹ It was an axiom of the middle ages that ‘scholarship and military power have always ﬂourished in the same place’³² and French predominance in both areas was soon being interpreted by contemporaries in a long-term world context. Chrétien de Troyes, the creator of Arthurian romance, elaborated in the twelfth century a new version of the old idea of translatio imperii, the westward shift of empire: ‘Our books teach us’, he wrote, ‘that Greece ﬁrst had the highest reputation for knighthood (chevalerie) and learning (clergie) and then knighthood and the highest learning came to Rome. Now they have come to France. God grant that they long remain there . . . ’.³³ The westward moving centre of learning and chivalry provides us with an idea of ‘core’ perhaps as potent as theories of the distribution of mechanical energy or patterns of labour migration. If France had the highest learning, then, by logical inference, other places had lower learning. A conﬂict within the Cistercian order in the early thirteenth century shows the power of this kind of Gallic cultural measuring-stick. The Cistercians had been remarkably successful in spreading from their Burgundian homeland to every corner of western Christendom. The order was highly centralized—and its ruling ofﬁcers and bodies wanted to keep it so. In the 1220s the Cistercian abbot Stephen of Lexington was sent to Ireland, where many Cistercian abbeys had been founded, and his task there was to ensure that the Irish Cistercian monasteries did not go independent or develop into islands of purely native culture. These were the rules he enforced: no one shall be admitted as a Cistercian monk unless he can make his confession in French or Latin. The monastic rule will henceforth be expounded in the Irish monasteries only in French . . . how can anyone love cloister or book who knows only Irish? ³⁰ Martino da Canale, cited in H. J. Chaytor, From Script to Print (Cambridge, 1945), 23. ³¹ Peter of Blois, epistola 93, Patrologia latina, 207, col. 293. ³² ‘semper ubi viguit scolastica sapiencia, viguit et militia’: Luke of Tuy, Chronicon mundi, IV.84, ed. cit., 325. ³³ Chrétien, Cligés, ll. 28–34, ed. A. Micha (Paris, 1957), 2.

36

Robert Bartlett

We have enjoined the Irish that if they wish to receive any of their people in the order in future, they should ensure that they send them to Paris or Oxford or some other renowned city, where they can learn letters and eloquence and decent behaviour. We have stressed to them that the order does not intend to exclude any nation, but only the unsuitable, the unﬁt and those at variance with proper human behaviour.³⁴

It is this kind of infuriating Gallocentrism that might well stimulate the same response that Malachy encountered at Bangor—‘Scoti sumus non Galli’—‘we are Irish, not French’. The identity that emerged as normative, metropolitan, and central in medieval western Europe was thus Roman and French. In the modern world there might be more than one opinion about which tradition has inherited that authority and centrality. Today the French seem to think their culture, especially their cinema and television, needs legal protection against the further westward extension of chevalerie and clergie to the Pentagon and Hollywood respectively, while even in North America there is the worry that the true centre of the world has now taken its next westward step and ended up in the Paciﬁc basin. Metropolitan insensitivity, the blind assertion of the value of certain sites, as shown by Wilfrid or Stephen of Lexington, still, of course, exists but may not represent the path of the future. Some recent developments in Europe (and elsewhere) mean that the core–periphery model, the distinction between heartlands and borders, is less signiﬁcant than it was. The value and power of metropolitan centres is less taken for granted; small-nation nationalism, seen everywhere from Catalonia to Estonia, entails the re-establishment of smaller political units and this process is not always violent; the decentralizing tendency of widespread private transport, electronic communications, and the general move from industrial production to services and the professions means that location is not so tightly tied to the economic imperatives of the age of steam, steel, and central parliaments. It is now more possible to imagine that one is central without being located in the (fading) industrial might of the Ruhr or embracing the innocent cultural conceit of Paris. Perhaps the wider world of medievalists will come fully to realize that one of the great historical œuvres of present times is focused on Wales and was produced by a Welshman. ³⁴ Stephen of Lexington, Registrum epistolarum, ed. P. B. Griesser, Analecta sacri ordinis Cisterciensis, 2 (1946), 47 (no. 37); discussed in the present writer’s The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change 950–1350 (Harmondsworth and Princeton, 1993), 228–30, with further literature.

4 Welsh Rulers and European Change, c.1100–1282 Huw Pryce

One of the most original and exciting features of Rees Davies’s interpretation of medieval Wales was his contention that the twelfth and thirteenth centuries witnessed ‘far-reaching and multi-faceted changes’ that resulted in nothing less than ‘the transformation of Welsh society’.¹ While reﬂecting a growing trend among historians of Wales from the mid-twentieth century onwards, his analysis of change was much more wide-ranging and better substantiated than any presented previously.² It also contained a strong comparative dimension, informed by a conviction that the history of Wales should be seen ‘as part of the histories of western European societies’,³ that not only helped to clarify what was distinctive about the Welsh developments under consideration but also to set these in a wider context. For many of the changes experienced in Wales were, of course, paralleled elsewhere in Europe. Indeed, they may be seen as exemplifying what Robert Bartlett has termed Europeanization, an inﬂuential paradigm for the transfer in the high middle ages of common features from the heartlands of France, Germany, northern Italy, and England to peripheries such as the Celtic lands, Scandinavia, the central European kingdoms, and Spain that helped to make Latin Christendom more homogeneous than it had been previously.⁴ Yet, while the trend towards greater uniformity cannot be denied, the impact of the new inﬂuences varied according to the contexts in which they were received. In some cases change was imposed by conquest; in others the key ¹ Davies, Conquest, pp. vii, 109. Cf. id., Empire, 135. ² For historiographical approaches see A. D. Carr, Medieval Wales (Houndmills, 1995), 8–26. ³ Davies, Conquest, p. viii. ⁴ R. Bartlett, The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change 950–1350 (London, 1993), ch. 11. See also, e.g., R. Bartlett and A. MacKay (eds.), Medieval Frontier Societies (Oxford, 1989); J. Staecker (ed.), The European Frontier: Clashes and Compromises in the Middle Ages (Lund, 2004). This model is less applicable to the Arabic and Byzantine worlds on the frontiers of Latin Christendom in southern Europe: D. Abulaﬁa, ‘Introduction: Seven Types of Ambiguity, c.1100–c.1500’, in id. and N. Berend (eds.), Medieval Frontiers: Concepts and Practices (Aldershot, 2002), 1–34, at 2.

38

Huw Pryce

dynamic was imitation, as native elites adopted institutions, practices, and norms from their more powerful neighbours, and quite often also imported foreign personnel. Furthermore, in either case change had to be mapped onto existing political, social, and cultural landscapes.⁵ As Rees Davies demonstrated, these issues are thrown into sharp relief by the history of Wales in the period from the earliest Norman invasions to the ﬁnal extinction of native rule by Edward I. While quite reasonably identifying Anglo-Norman conquest as the key dynamic of change, especially in the Marcher lordships along the Anglo-Welsh border and in extensive areas of southern Wales, Davies acknowledged that some ecclesiastical developments in particular reﬂected wider European trends, and also that the territories still held by Welsh rulers experienced signiﬁcant changes which resulted, at least in part, from a readiness to imitate Anglo-French example. At the same time, though, his comparative approach served to complicate the picture of wide-ranging transformation he had drawn by highlighting its uneven and limited character. For example, he strongly implied that alien conquest was a more effective vehicle of change than native imitation by maintaining that Anglo-Norman colonization was ‘a major catalyst, however slow-acting, for initiating and accelerating the tempo of economic change in lowland south Wales and, indirectly, in other parts of Wales’.⁶ Small wonder, then, that his assessment of the scale and pace of change in native Wales or pura Wallia was distinctly downbeat and hedged about by qualiﬁcations. Thus the ‘rapid and far-reaching changes in the character of secular lordship in general and royal power in particular’ throughout twelfth- and thirteenth-century western Europe ‘were reﬂected, albeit belatedly and often dimly, in the native kingdoms of Wales in the last century or so of Welsh independence’.⁷ Likewise, he concluded that, ‘Important as was the economic and social transformation which it underwent . . . native Wales still remained a poor and undeveloped society.’⁸ If Rees Davies made change a crucial element in his interpretation of medieval Wales, then, he also raised important questions about its nature and extent. What follows addresses those questions with respect to one aspect of his argument in particular: the attempts of native Welsh rulers to emulate their Anglo-Norman ⁵ Cf. Chris Wickham’s review of Bartlett, Making of Europe: ‘Making Europes’, New Left Review, 208 (1994), 133–43, at 141–2. ⁶ Davies, Conquest, 160. ⁷ Ibid., 252 (emphasis added). Cf. ibid., 210, where ecclesiastical changes in Wales are described as ‘often pale reﬂections of the momentous transformation which the western church as a whole underwent in this period.’ ⁸ Ibid., 269–70. See also Davies, British Isles, 3, for contrasts between Wales and Ireland, on the one hand, and England and Scotland, on the other. The limited success of native state-building efforts in Wales is also emphasized in R. Frame, The Political Development of the British Isles 1100–1400 (Oxford, 1990), 117–25, and R. Bartlett, ‘The Celtic Lands of the British Isles’, in D. Abulaﬁa (ed.), The New Cambridge Medieval History, V. c.1198– c.1300 (Cambridge, 1999), 809–27, at 814–15.

Welsh Rulers and European Change, c. 1100–1282

39

or English neighbours during the two centuries before the Edwardian conquest of 1282–3. This essay thus offers a Welsh perspective on the broader issue of how, and how far, societies on the peripheries of more powerful and established polities changed as a result of their exposure to external inﬂuences originating from the latter. I should stress that the main focus will be on the nature and scope of change within Wales rather than on the degree to which Wales came to look more like the rest of Latin Christendom—a distinction that, in any case, requires immediate qualiﬁcation, inasmuch as it implies a uniform European norm against which Welsh developments may be measured. Indeed, one of the premisses of the present discussion is that those developments were ‘European’ as well as ‘Welsh’, belonging as they did to what was, after all, a highly variegated pattern of change across Europe as a whole.⁹ A further, though linked, premiss is that any assessment of the impact of external inﬂuences needs to take careful account of the contexts of their reception. Accordingly, I shall argue that, while it is certainly fair to say that the territories held by Welsh rulers underwent a process of Europeanization (or, perhaps more accurately in this context, Anglicization),¹⁰ such a characterization, with its emphasis on the transformative effects of foreign example, does not go far enough in explaining the nature and signiﬁcance of the changes that occurred. Instead, it may be more fruitful to shift the focus of attention to circumstances within Wales. While necessarily general and selective in its coverage, the discussion will have served its purpose if it stimulates further thinking about the approaches and categories we adopt in trying to interpret this period of Welsh history. I shall begin by assessing the extent to which Welsh rulers imitated aspects of AngloFrench society, before turning to examine the political and cultural contexts in which these Europeanizing or Anglicizing developments took place. One key issue considered here is the extent to which attempts to bring about change should be understood in terms of a dialectic between native and foreign (or, as the contrast is sometimes presented, between traditionalists and modernizers).¹¹ Although this paradigm is certainly applicable in some Welsh instances, I shall argue that it needs to be deployed with care, for, as several historians have recently pointed out with respect to twelfth- and thirteenth-century Scotland, it runs the risk of overemphasizing ethnic and cultural differences, thereby ⁹ Cf. S. Reynolds, ‘Fiefs and Vassals in Scotland: A View from Outside’, SHR, 82 (2003), 176–93, at 192: ‘Within the same general trends there were variations everywhere.’ ¹⁰ Cf. Davies, Empire, 170: ‘Anglicization may be interpreted as the distinctively insular version of this process of Europeanization.’ ¹¹ See e.g. Bartlett, Making of Europe, 83; P. Knoll, ‘Economic and Political Institutions on the Polish–German Frontier in the Middle Ages: Action, Reaction, Interaction’, in Bartlett and MacKay (eds.), Medieval Frontier Societies, 151–74; A. Thomas, ‘Czech–German Relations as Reﬂected in Old Czech Literature’, ibid., 199–215; G. W. S. Barrow, David I of Scotland: The Balance of New and Old, Stenton Lecture (Reading, 1985); C. J. Neville, Native Lordship in Medieval Scotland: The Earldoms of Strathearn and Lennox, c.1140–1365 (Dublin, 2005) (with a useful historiographical survey at 3–7).

40

Huw Pryce

obscuring the crucial point that imitation of external example belonged to a wider process of change whose character was determined above all by the struggle for power.¹² There can be no doubt that Welsh rulers emulated European and more particularly Anglo-Norman or English models, though the extent to which they did so varied across both time and space: broadly speaking, such imitation gathered momentum from the later twelfth century onwards, and was taken furthest by the most powerful princes such as the Lord Rhys (d. 1197) in south-west Wales and, above all, Llywelyn ap Iorwerth (d. 1240) and his grandson Llywelyn ap Gruffudd (d. 1282), princes of Gwynedd in the north-west. The assimilation of new norms and practices originating from outside their own societies reﬂected the growing connections between native rulers and the Anglo-French world, not just through military conﬂict with Marcher lords or the English crown but also through diplomatic negotiation, trade, and marriage.¹³ The impact of external inﬂuences is particularly clear in the sphere of warfare. Welsh rulers began to follow the example of the Anglo-Norman conquerors from the early twelfth century by building castles, ﬁrst of earth and timber and then, from the 1170s, in stone; from the late twelfth century they also used siege engines, and by the 1260s Llywelyn ap Gruffudd deployed several hundred armoured horses.¹⁴ (Conversely, the practice of enslaving captives seems to have ceased by the late twelfth century, a development which must be related to the ending of slavery that was one of the major, though poorly understood, changes in Wales in this period.)¹⁵ In addition, princes displayed their identiﬁcation with European norms of knighthood through being represented by equestrian seals from at least the mid-twelfth century, while by the thirteenth century rulers of Gwynedd adopted heraldry based on the royal arms of England.¹⁶ ¹² Cf. the ‘Editors’ Introduction’, in S. Boardman and A. Ross (eds.), The Exercise of Power in Medieval Scotland, c.1200–1500 (Dublin, 2003), 18–19; R. D. Oram, ‘Continuity, Adaptation and Integration: The Earls and Earldom of Mar, c.1150–c.1300’, ibid., 46–66; M. H. Hammond, ‘Ethnicity and the Writing of Medieval Scottish History’, SHR, 85 (2006), 1–27; Reynolds, ‘Fiefs and Vassals in Scotland’. ¹³ Davies, Conquest, 160–71, 213–51, 308–30; A. J. Roderick, ‘Marriage and Politics in Wales, 1066–1282’, WHR, 4 (1968–9), 3–20; H. Pryce, ‘Negotiating Anglo-Welsh Relations: Llywelyn the Great and Henry III’, in B. K. U. Weiler with I. W. Rowlands (ed.), England and Europe in the Reign of Henry III (1216–1272) (Aldershot, 2002), 13–29, at 13–14. ¹⁴ R. Avent, ‘Castles of the Welsh Princes’, Château Gaillard, 16 (1994), 11–20; The Merioneth Lay Subsidy Roll 1292–3, ed. K. Williams-Jones (Cardiff, 1976), pp. cxxiii–cxxiv. ¹⁵ See e.g. Davies, Conquest, 119–20; J. Gillingham, The English in the Twelfth Century (Woodbridge, 2000), 46–8; E. I. Bromberg, ‘Wales and the Medieval Slave Trade’, Speculum, 17 (1942), 263–9; W. Davies, ‘Looking Backwards to the Early Medieval Past: Wales and England, A Contrast in Approaches’, WHR, 22 (2004–5), 197–221, at 211–13. ¹⁶ D. Crouch, The Image of Aristocracy in Britain, 1000–1300 (London, 1992), 155–63, 204, 241–2; M. P. Siddons, ‘Welsh Equestrian Seals’, National Library of Wales Journal, 23 (1983–4), 292–318; id., The Development of Welsh Heraldry, I (Aberystwyth, 1991), 280–2, 291–3.

Welsh Rulers and European Change, c. 1100–1282

41

Those rulers also developed their modes of governance and increased their resources through, for example, the commutation of some renders in kind for cash payments, the fostering of towns, the formation of a cadre of ofﬁcials charged with carrying out more elaborate administrative arrangements, and a greater use of documents that adhered to English and European forms, including attempts to tighten control over other Welsh lords by deﬁning their obligations to the prince in written agreements.¹⁷ Nor did the princes shy away from legal innovations modelled on English common law that rode roughshod over principles of native Welsh law: the use of the inquest, the abolition by Dafydd ap Llywelyn (1240–6) of Gwynedd and his council of the law of galanas (whereby homicide was treated as an emendable offence requiring compensation by the perpetrator’s kin to that of the victim), and the permitting of women to inherit land in certain circumstances or hold it as dower are all cases in point.¹⁸ At the same time native rulers played an active role in ensuring that the Church in Wales conformed more closely to wider western European patterns through their patronage of religious orders of continental origin, especially the Cistercians and Augustinians, and, in the thirteenth century, the mendicants.¹⁹ There is enough evidence to show, then, that Welsh princes and lords embraced aspects of Anglo-French aristocratic culture. Indeed, the resulting changes have been presented in terms of a wider process of Anglicization among native elites. Thus, according to Robert Bartlett, by the mid-thirteenth century Welsh rulers ‘had become virtually indistinguishable from their foes in armament and methods of waging war (as in much else)’, while David Crouch has asserted that thereafter ‘Anglicisation affected all levels of the Welsh aristocracy’.²⁰ Likewise, in David Carpenter’s view the assimilation of Anglo-French norms by those rulers helps to explain why Matthew Paris presented the Welsh in a positive light that contrasted sharply with their portrayal as barbarians by William of Malmesbury and later historians in twelfth-century England.²¹ Nevertheless, while Anglicization—or for that matter Europeanization—provides a useful shorthand for some of the changes instigated by native rulers, especially by the thirteenth century, its scope, in fact, remained quite limited throughout this period. One indication of this is that Welsh elites were not integrated into a wider English or Anglo-French aristocratic world to the same degree as some other native rulers with respect to ¹⁷ D. Stephenson, The Governance of Gwynedd (Cardiff, 1984); J. B. Smith, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, Prince of Wales (Cardiff, 1998), ch. 5; AWR, 47–142. ¹⁸ H. Pryce, Native Law and the Church in Medieval Wales (Oxford, 1993), 78–9; J. B. Smith, ‘Dower in Thirteenth-century Wales: A Grant of the Commote of Anhuniog, 1277’, BBCS, 30 (1982–3), 348–55; T. M. Charles-Edwards and N. A. Jones, ‘Breintiau Gwyr Powys: The Liberties of the Men of Powys’, in T. M. Charles-Edwards, M. E. Owen, and P. Russell (eds.), The Welsh King and his Court (Cardiff, 2000), 191–223, at 210–11. ¹⁹ Crouch, Image of Aristocracy, 339–41. ²⁰ Bartlett, Making of Europe, 72; Crouch, Image of Aristocracy, 161. ²¹ D. Carpenter, The Struggle for Mastery: The Penguin History of Britain 1066–1284, paperback edn. (London, 2004), 14–24.

42

Huw Pryce

their powerful neighbours. True, Welsh rulers had opportunities to rub shoulders with Marcher lords or the English royal court through marriage and diplomacy. But these connections did not extend either to substantial participation in English political society or to the introduction into pura Wallia of signiﬁcant numbers of English or other foreign personnel. Although several members of the dynasties of Gwynedd and Powys received estates in England (notably the manors of Ellesmere in Shropshire and Ashford in Derbyshire), such landholding was on a very small scale compared with that of the royal house of Scotland, and Welsh princes therefore did not usually have an opportunity to act the part of aristocrats in Anglo-Norman or Angevin England.²² Nor, perhaps partly as a result of this, did the princes—in contrast, say, to the kings and (to a lesser extent) native earls of Scotland or the rulers of Pomerania, Poland, and Bohemia—settle foreign knights on their lands or recruit foreign servants or courtiers, who could have acted as catalysts for further assimilation of Anglo-Norman or English institutions, norms, and practices.²³ However, the key factor here was probably the contested and fragmented nature of territorial authority in native Wales, a legacy of the early middle ages exacerbated by ongoing conﬂict with Marcher lords and kings of England.²⁴ In particular, no Welsh polity possessed the size or regnal solidarity to offer settlers a sufﬁciently compelling pole of attraction to detach them from their loyalty to the English crown. The principalities and lordships of pura Wallia were relatively small and lacked extensive lands needing improvement comparable to those in, say, some of the central European kingdoms or, to a lesser extent, Scotland; moreover, Anglo-Norman lords had helped themselves to many of the most potentially productive lands in Wales, even if in some cases (such as Anglesey, Ceredigion, and parts of Gwent) early conquests were subsequently reversed by the Welsh.²⁵ True, native rulers lacked neither the ability nor the inclination to alienate land: after all, they made extensive benefactions to the Cistercians and other religious orders from the later twelfth century onwards, and in the thirteenth century the princes of Gwynedd, at least, granted both new estates and extensive immunities from dues and services to certain leading native families.²⁶ That they disposed of their landed resources in these ways, rather than using them to reward foreign knights who might have provided alternative bases of support, suggests, however, that rulers believed that they stood a more realistic prospect of ²² H. Pryce, ‘A Cross-Border Career: Giraldus Cambrensis between Wales and England’, in R. Schneider (ed.), ‘Grenzgänger’ (Saarbrücken, 1998), 45–60, at 45, 50; AWR, 24, 26, 42–3, 409–10, 414. ²³ Cf. Bartlett, Making of Europe, 53–5, 78–83, 232, 299; Knoll, ‘Economic and Political Institutions’, 159–64; Thomas, ‘Czech–German Relations’, 199–200; R. Oram, The Lordship of Galloway (Edinburgh, 2000), ch. 7; Neville, Native Lordship, ch. 2. ²⁴ Cf. Carpenter, Struggle for Mastery, 14; Davies, Conquest, 269–70. ²⁵ AWR, 7–9, 22, 34–6. ²⁶ Stephenson, Governance of Gwynedd, 96–135; J. B. Smith, ‘Land Endowments of the Period of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd’, BBCS, 34 (1987), 150–64.

Welsh Rulers and European Change, c. 1100–1282

43

maintaining the loyalty of the native nobility, as also of Welsh Cistercian houses, than of any potential Anglo-Norman or English settlers. This, in turn, may have stemmed from a recognition that settlers would be reluctant to relinquish either their allegiance to the king of England or their expansionist ambitions at the expense of the native principalities. The context of Anglo-Norman and English military expansion was, of course, crucial. Gerald of Wales highlighted the issues at stake in an explanation of why Robert ﬁtz Stephen, constable of Cardigan under the Clare lords of Ceredigion, rejected the Lord Rhys’s offer to release him from custody in 1167 on condition that he join forces with the prince against Henry II: ‘seeing that on his father’s side he was bound by ties of natural loyalty to his lord the king’, Robert preferred to participate in the English invasion of Ireland—and thus win new lands through conquest overseas—‘rather than to tarnish his reputation . . . by laying himself open to some future accusation of disloyalty’.²⁷ That this invasion originated with an invitation from the Irish king Diarmait Mac Murchada only serves to highlight, moreover, that, if made from a position of weakness, an offer of land in return for military assistance could all too easily lead to foreign conquest.²⁸ Indeed, the fact that settlers had already established themselves in parts of Wales through conquest may have made any attempt to introduce them into pura Wallia unacceptable to the princes and especially perhaps to the nobility who formed the core of their armies.²⁹ Perhaps not only the economic but also the political costs of inviting settlers to their principalities would simply have been too high. If we turn to the changes that did take place in pura Wallia, their limited extent becomes immediately apparent when compared with developments in, say, England, northern France, or even the most powerful Marcher lordships. Levels of documentary production, while increasing, remained very low, and the writing ofﬁce of the princes of Gwynedd did not develop into a fully ﬂedged chancery imposing standard formulas, including consistent princely styles proclaiming the ruler’s status, or distinguishing different kinds of document through the use of different coloured cords or wax for sealing.³⁰ The development of fortiﬁcations was likewise restricted. Of the more than 470 castles still surviving in Wales only 7 per cent can deﬁnitely be attributed to the Welsh, and native stone castles, ²⁷ Expugnatio Hibernica, The Conquest of Ireland, by Giraldus Cambrensis, ed. and trans. A. B. Scott and F. X. Martin (Dublin, 1978), 28–30 (I. 2). ²⁸ Cf. the perceptive comparison of the contrasting positions of Diarmait and David I of Scotland in P. Wormald, ‘Celtic and Anglo-Saxon Kingship: Some Further Thoughts’, in P. E. Szarmach (ed.), Sources of Anglo-Saxon Culture (Kalamazoo, Mich., 1986), 151–83, at 170. See also M. T. Flanagan, Irish Society, Anglo-Norman Settlers, Angevin Kingship: Interactions in Ireland in the Late Twelfth Century (Oxford, 1989), esp. ch. 3. ²⁹ Cf. Crouch, Image of Aristocracy, 159–61, which argues for the independence, and resistance to Anglo-French norms, of the warband (teulu) recruited from the ranks of the native nobility (uchelwyr). ³⁰ AWR, 48–58, 132–42.

44

Huw Pryce

while displaying afﬁnities with Anglo-Norman or English examples, were modest in size and exhibited some idiosyncratic features.³¹ The towns fostered by native rulers in the thirteenth century tell a similar story, being very small and few in number compared with the southern lowlands of the March, let alone England.³² Although the circulation of coin quickened in thirteenth-century Gwynedd, and Llywelyn ap Gruffudd’s income compared favourably with that of the greatest English lords, probably amounting to between £3,000 and £3,500 per annum, the onerous demands made by that prince to boost his income suggests that it was inadequate to sustain his political ambitions—not least, the substantial payments to the English crown due under the terms of the Treaty of Montgomery in 1267 that formally recognized him as Prince of Wales.³³ Moreover, the pennies that circulated were English, as none of the princes minted coins in his own name; this reﬂected a more general dependence on imported goods that could be exploited by kings of England through the imposition of trade embargoes in time of war.³⁴ It is clearly important to recognize that the changes achieved by Welsh rulers were limited in scope and fell far short of exploiting the full potential of the models being imitated, if only in order to avoid exaggerating the degree to which native principalities came to resemble the major polities of western Europe. Yet, if some attempts to set those rulers in a European context have perhaps protested too much (as in claims that the princes of Gwynedd were ‘set fast to create their own feudal state’, for example),³⁵ the adoption of a comparative perspective does not necessarily require us to go to the opposite extreme and relegate those rulers to the role of poor relations struggling to catch up with supposedly more advanced developments elsewhere. Instead, it invites a readjustment of focus. Rather than measuring their efforts against the yardstick of external norms, it may be more fruitful to analyse these in the context of Welsh society. After all, even pale reﬂections of developments in the kingdoms of England or France may have had a signiﬁcant impact on the principality of Gwynedd; furthermore, the ³¹ R. Avent, Dolwyddelan Castle, Dolbadarn Castle, Castell y Bere (Cardiff, 2004), 3–4, 13; cf. id., ‘Castles of the Welsh Princes’, 11–13. ³² Cf. Davies, Conquest, 165; R. A. Grifﬁths, ‘Wales and the Marches’, in D. M. Palliser (ed.), The Cambridge Urban History of Britain, I. 600–1540 (Cambridge, 2000), 681–714, at 694–5. ³³ Smith, Llywelyn, 181, 245–54, 363–6. ³⁴ However, some English Short Cross pennies struck at Rhuddlan in the late 12th and 13th centuries may have been imitations issued on behalf of rulers of Gwynedd: E. Besley, ‘Short Cross and Other Medieval Coins from Llanfaes, Anglesesy’, British Numismatic Journal, 65 (1995), 46–82, at 55. For embargoes see Davies, Conquest, 169. ³⁵ G. A. Williams, When Was Wales? A History of the Welsh (Harmondsworth, 1985), 62; see also ibid., 76, 78–9, and, for a view originally published in 1950, T. Jones Pierce, Medieval Welsh Society: Selected Essays, ed. J. B. Smith (Cardiff, 1972), 38: before the Edwardian conquest ‘Pura Wallia . . . had developed in every direction all the characteristics of a feudal state in miniature.’ (The implication of these comments is clear irrespective of whether one accepts the validity of the terms ‘feudal’ and ‘state’ in this context.) Cf. Davies, British Isles, 26 (n. 56), for the comment that Irish historians arguing for profound changes in Irish kingship after the Viking period ‘sometimes seem to protest too much’.

Welsh Rulers and European Change, c. 1100–1282

45

restricted extent of some borrowings may simply reﬂect a rational adaptation to the circumstances obtaining in native polities—an interpretation implicit, for instance, in Robin Frame’s contention that ‘The small size of Gwynedd, together with its nucleated character, meant that there was no need for a large, let alone departmentalized, bureaucracy.’³⁶ The willingness of Welsh rulers to cultivate links with the Anglo-French world and adopt aspects of its culture is probably best seen as part of a strategy of distinction designed to elevate their status within native society.³⁷ As Rees Davies observed, even submission to a powerful overlord such as Henry II could serve this purpose, inasmuch as it implied a special relationship and thus recognition of the native ruler’s paramount status within his own territory—or indeed, in the case of the two Llywelyns in the thirteenth century, more widely in Wales.³⁸ It was truer still of marriages that brought princes into the orbit of the royal family in England, of which Llywelyn ap Iorwerth’s union with King John’s illegitimate daughter Joan and that of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd with Eleanor de Montfort, a cousin of Edward I, were the most conspicuous examples.³⁹ Marriage alliances with Marcher families, increasingly common in the thirteenth century, likewise brought Welsh dynasties closer to Anglo-French aristocratic society, while weakening their ties with other native princely and noble families.⁴⁰ Native castle-building looks more impressive when viewed from the perspective of the Welsh principalities in which it took place. The thirteenth-century princes of Gwynedd developed a carefully organized system of defence based on castles—such as Dolbadarn, Dolwyddelan, and Castell y Bere—radiating from the heartlands of Snowdonia and controlling key mountain passes, and supplied, in several cases, by cattle farms located in their immediate vicinity. Situated away from the centres of the princes’ demesnes (some of which appear to have been fortiﬁed with earthwork castles),⁴¹ and, particularly in the time of Llywelyn ap Iorwerth, modelled in signiﬁcant respects on contemporary castles in the southern March and on the English border, these fortiﬁcations showed the princes’ determination to develop their power in new directions. Though smaller than the largest castles in the March, such as Pembroke or Montgomery, their size and solidity—and, hence, their impact on the landscape—were unprecedented ³⁶ Frame, Political Development, 120. ³⁷ Cf. the comments on 13th-century Norwegian courtly culture in S. Bagge, ‘Ideologies and Mentalities’, in K. Helle (ed.), The Cambridge History of Scandinavia, I. Prehistory to 1520 (Cambridge, 2003), 465–86, at 474–5. ³⁸ Davies, Domination, 59–60; C. W. Lewis, ‘The Treaty of Woodstock, 1247: Its Background and Signiﬁcance’, WHR, 2 (1964–5), 37–65, at 52–3. ³⁹ L. J. Wilkinson, ‘Joan, Wife of Llywelyn the Great’, in M. Prestwich, R. Britnell, and R. Frame (eds.), Thirteenth Century England, X (Woodbridge, 2005), 81–93; Smith, Llywelyn, 390–402, 448–50. ⁴⁰ Roderick, ‘Marriage and Politics’. ⁴¹ N. Johnstone, ‘An Investigation into the Location of the Royal Courts of Thirteenth-Century Gwynedd’, in N. Edwards (ed.), Landscape and Settlement in Medieval Wales (Oxford, 1997), 55–69, at 61.

46

Huw Pryce

within the lands in which they were erected.⁴² At the same time, however, the timing and scale of Welsh castle-building took account of political realities. Thus, such building generally occurred when princes felt their territories were secure (for example, during periods when there was little prospect of royal intervention), and it is unlikely that any princely fortiﬁcation was intended to provide adequate defence against a sustained assault by the king of England.⁴³ After all, military changes were designed above all to strengthen native principalities and protect them from other Welsh rulers or Marcher lords, rather than to secure them from an all-out invasion by the vastly superior forces of the English crown. By the same token, as Gerald of Wales implied, there was little point in training large forces of heavy cavalry, as lightly armed and armoured horsemen and footsoldiers would be more effective in the mountainous, wooded, and boggy terrain that predominated in Wales.⁴⁴ Another important issue is the extent to which princes’ attempts to bring about change were constrained by, and sometimes even mediated through, customs and norms articulated by, or on behalf of, particular interest groups within Welsh society. As indicated earlier, one way of interpreting the relationship between Welsh rulers and native society and culture is to see it as a story of conﬂict between Europeanizing modernizers, on the one hand, and conservative traditionalists, on the other. At ﬁrst sight, this view has much to commend it. Both poets and lawyers, quasi-professional practioners belonging to inﬂuential learned classes, occasionally criticized a ruler for stepping beyond the mark of what they considered to be traditional custom.⁴⁵ This is particularly clear with respect to Llywelyn ap Iorwerth’s ordinance of 1220 concerning the succession, which proclaimed Dafydd ap Llywelyn—Llywelyn’s son with his wife, Joan—the prince’s heir at the expense of Dafydd’s elder half-brother Gruffudd on the grounds that the latter was illegitimate.⁴⁶ An early thirteenth-century lawbook compiled in Gwynedd implicitly rejected Llywelyn’s ordinance by stating that an illegitimate son should not be penalized with respect to inheritance on account of the sin of his father. Moreover, it is quite likely that the brother of the lawyer to whom the lawbook is attributed was the author of a poem praising Gruffudd,⁴⁷ and several other poets, to judge by their eulogies to him, likewise considered ⁴² G. R. J. Jones, ‘The Defences of Gwynedd in the Thirteenth Century’, Transactions of the Caernarvonshire Historical Society, 30 (1969), 29–49, esp. 38–9; Avent, ‘Castles of the Welsh Princes’, 12–16. ⁴³ S. Davies, Welsh Military Institutions, 633–1283 (Cardiff, 2004), 204–7. ⁴⁴ Gir. Camb. Op., vi. 219 (Descriptio Kambriae, II. 8); Davies, Welsh Military Institutions, 175–6; cf. also F. C. Suppe, Military Institutions on the Welsh Marches: Shropshire, A.D. 1066–1300 (Woodbridge, 1994), 1–2, 147. ⁴⁵ For these classes see e.g. J. E. C. Williams, The Poets of the Welsh Princes (Cardiff, 1978); T. M. Charles-Edwards, The Welsh Laws (Cardiff, 1989). ⁴⁶ J. B. Smith, ‘Dynastic Succession in Medieval Wales’, BBCS, 33 (1986), 199–232, at 218–20. ⁴⁷ Pryce, Native Law, 98–100 and n. 84; Gwaith Dafydd Benfras ac Eraill o Feirdd Hanner Cyntaf y Drydedd Ganrif ar Ddeg, ed. N. G. Costigan (Bosco) et al. (Cardiff, 1995), no. 23.

Welsh Rulers and European Change, c. 1100–1282

47

Gruffudd to possess the attributes required of a prince.⁴⁸ That such expressions of sympathy reﬂected a broader body of opinion is shown by the extensive support given to Gruffudd in Gwynedd when he challenged Dafydd following the death of their father, Llywelyn, in April 1240, a challenge temporarily overcome by Dafydd’s capture of Gruffudd around the end of the following September.⁴⁹ Care needs to be taken, however, before jumping to the conclusion that support for Gruffudd stemmed essentially from hostility to the adoption of foreign custom in the interests of the offspring of Llywelyn’s foreign wife. True, the recasting of the material on the queen in the northern Welsh lawbook known as the Iorwerth Redaction seems to conﬁne her sphere of action to the chamber, and may therefore imply that Joan should play only a domestic role rather than a public one centred on the prince’s court.⁵⁰ Yet the evidence suggests that the main point at issue in this and other instances of internal tension or conﬂict was the ruler’s attempt to strengthen his authority and that of his dynasty by introducing innovations which the leading kin groups that formed the native nobility (uchelwyr) perceived as being contrary to custom and detrimental to their interests—an attitude for which there are many parallels in medieval Europe.⁵¹ Thus the late twelfth-century poem ‘The Liberties of the Men of Powys’ by Cynddelw Brydydd Mawr and the tract ‘The Liberties of Arfon’, preserved in a mid-thirteenth-century legal manuscript, were composed in defence of the liberties of particular regional groups, whose ancestors had allegedly received them as rewards for valour in the early middle ages.⁵² More generally, the lawbooks’ opening tractate on the royal court may be at least partly explicable as expressing the interests of the nobles from whose ranks both native lawyers and the various royal ofﬁcials were recruited. Such men were not hostile to princely power as such: after all, they depended on it for patronage. But they may well have wished to contain that power within parameters favourable to them. In addition, by asserting that Welsh law had been established in an assembly convened by Hywel Dda (the Good) (d. 950), the prologues to the ⁴⁸ Gwaith Llywarch ap Llywelyn ‘Prydydd y Moch’, ed. E. M. Jones with the assistance of N. A. Jones (Cardiff, 1991), nos. 29–30; Gwaith Dafydd Benfras, nos. 3, 29, 31; cf. P. Lynch, ‘Court Poetry, Power and Politics’, in Charles-Edwards et al. (eds.), Welsh King, 167–90, at 176–8. ⁴⁹ G. A. Williams, ‘The Succession to Gwynedd, 1238–47’, BBCS, 20 (1962–4), 393–413; Smith, Llywelyn, 31–2. ⁵⁰ R. C. Stacey, ‘King, Queen and Edling in the Laws of Court’, in Charles-Edwards et al. (eds.), Welsh King, 15–62, at 55–62. ⁵¹ Cf. J. C. Holt, Magna Carta (Cambridge, 1965), esp. ch. 4. ⁵² J. B. Smith, ‘Gwlad ac Arglwydd’, in M. E. Owen and B. F. Roberts (eds.), Beirdd a Thywysogion: Barddoniaeth Llys yng Nghymru, Iwerddon a’r Alban (Cardiff, 1996), 237–57, esp. 250–2; Charles-Edwards and Jones, ‘Breintiau’, 191–223. Cf. N. Berend, At the Gate of Christendom: Jews, Muslims and ‘Pagans’ in Medieval Hungary, c.1000– c.1300 (Cambridge, 2001), 21, for the military aristocracy in Hungary claiming that its privileges derived from conquests by its ancestors in the ninth century.

48

Huw Pryce

lawbooks quite possibly represent a reaction to the willingness of some twelfthand especially thirteenth-century princes to disregard the native legal tradition when it suited them: the lawyers sought to defend their law by invoking the authority of a powerful Welsh king in the past.⁵³ Yet, while members of native learned classes certainly voiced opposition to some of the princes’ initiatives, thereby probably reﬂecting views held more widely among leading free kindreds, the notion of conﬂict between modernizing princes and a traditionalist Welsh culture requires two qualiﬁcations. First, that culture was itself varied, dynamic, and open to new inﬂuences. Indeed, its response—part imitative, part reactive—to those inﬂuences may itself be regarded as further evidence of Europeanization. Consider, for example, the thirteenth-century prose romances Owain, Geraint, and Peredur, with their likely debt to French tales and their depiction of a world of knighthood and chivalry; or the Welsh translations of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History and of other Latin as well as French texts, both religious and secular.⁵⁴ Nor did the resistance of native lawyers to princely innovation preclude their developing new genres of legal writing, indebted to wider European inﬂuences, that were then accommodated within the framework of native law. As Robin Chapman Stacey has put it, this reﬂected ‘the desire of thirteenth-century Welsh jurists to remain ‘‘cutting edge’’ in terms of legal practice without sacriﬁcing the integrity and long history of their tradition’.⁵⁵ In short, lawyers were themselves willing to innovate, provided they could do so on their own terms. Moreover, these various forms of written culture were cultivated in Cistercian monasteries, which in pura Wallia came to be closely aligned with the Welsh dynasties—an instructive example of how external inﬂuences could be assimilated to local conditions.⁵⁶ Second, and more importantly for the present argument, native rulers themselves patronized the learned classes—through gifts to poets and, at least in Gwynedd, by appointing lawyers as ofﬁcial judges—and depended on aspects of ⁵³ H. Pryce, ‘The Context and Purpose of the Earliest Welsh Lawbooks’, Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies, 39 (Summer 2000), 39–63; idem, ‘The Prologues to the Welsh Lawbooks’, BBCS, 33 (1986), 151–87. ⁵⁴ See e.g. P. Mac Cana, The Mabinogi, 2nd edn. (Cardiff, 1992), 93–124; R. Bromwich, A. O. H. Jarman, and B. F. Roberts (eds.), The Arthur of the Welsh: The Arthurian Legend in Medieval Welsh Literature (Cardiff, 1991), esp. chs. 4, 6–8; O. J. Padel, Arthur in Medieval Welsh Literature (Cardiff, 2000), 77–84; S. Davies and P. W. Thomas (eds.), Canhwyll Marchogyon: Cyd-destunoli Peredur (Cardiff, 2000). ⁵⁵ R. C. Stacey, ‘Learning to Plead in Medieval Welsh Law’, Studia Celtica, 38 (2004), 107–23; quotation at 123. See also T. M. Charles-Edwards, ‘Cynghawsedd: Counting and Pleading in Medieval Welsh Law’, BBCS, 33 (1986), 188–98; and cf. R. C. Stacey, ‘Divorce, Medieval Welsh Style’, Speculum, 77 (2002), 1107–27 at 1123–5 (which argues that the Iorwerth Redaction of Welsh law includes a native, and thoroughly secular, commentary on thirteenth-century debates on the evils of divorce). ⁵⁶ F. G. Cowley, The Monastic Order in South Wales, 1066–1349 (Cardiff, 1977), 24–7, 46–50, 148–9; D. H. Williams, The Welsh Cistercians (Leominster, 2001), 3, 26–32; D. Huws, Medieval Welsh Manuscripts (Cardiff, 2000), 52–3.

Welsh Rulers and European Change, c. 1100–1282

49

their culture for ideological support.⁵⁷ Unlike, say, the Czech rulers of thirteenthcentury Bohemia, who invited German poets to their courts as part of a wider policy of favouring German immigrants (a policy that created resentment among native Czech lords), Welsh princes and their nobles both maintained close links with the indigenous culture.⁵⁸ Court poets lavished praises on their princely patrons in intricately crafted verses that emphasized the latter’s distinguished pedigrees and martial prowess; they also sometimes presented Welsh rulers as worthy successors of the British kings who had fought the Bernicians in post-Roman Northumbria.⁵⁹ According to Gerald of Wales, the poets also preserved genealogies of the princes, both by memory and in writing—genealogies that traced their descent to early medieval kings and indeed far beyond that.⁶⁰ A further indication of rulers’ cultivation of the traditional is their overwhelming adherence, throughout the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, to an established stock of dynastic names, especially for sons—in contrast, for example, to the Scottish kings and the rulers of Mecklenburg, whose naming patterns came to be strongly inﬂuenced by those of their royal neighbours in England and Germany, respectively.⁶¹ Therefore, if the princes were ready to modernize in order to increase their power, in seeking to legitimize their authority they—in common with other medieval rulers—looked to the past. Native men of learning thus provided crucial title deeds for their patrons’ claims to possess a royal status deeply rooted in antiquity, a status signiﬁcantly superior to that of even the most powerful Marcher lord in Wales. The lawyers, some of whom were closely related to poets, also implicitly endowed the princes with royal status in compilations of native law that accorded prominence to the king, his ceremonial court, and a wide array of royal rights.⁶² Moreover, in early thirteenth-century Gwynedd, some legal compilations provided an elaborate statement of the superiority of the prince of Gwynedd over the other native rulers by declaring that these owed gold to the ‘king of Aberffraw’, the court on Anglesey regarded as the traditional chief seat ⁵⁷ M. E. Owen, ‘Noddwyr a Beirdd’, in ead. and Roberts (eds.), Beirdd a Thywysogion, 75–107; R. R. Davies, ‘The Administration of Law in Medieval Wales: The Role of the Ynad Cwmwd (Judex Patrie)’, in T. M. Charles-Edwards, M. E. Owen, and D. B. Walters (eds.), Lawyers and Laymen: Studies in the History of Law Presented to Professor Dafydd Jenkins (Cardiff, 1986), 258–73, at 262–5. ⁵⁸ Cf. Thomas, ‘Czech–German Relations’, 199–207; see also L. E. Scales, ‘On the Margin of Community: Germans in Pre-Hussite Bohemia’, TRHS, 6th ser., 9 (1999), 327–52. ⁵⁹ Williams, Poets; H. Pryce, ‘British or Welsh? National Identity in Twelfth-Century Wales’, EHR, 116 (2001), 775–801 at 787–8. ⁶⁰ Gir. Camb. Op., vi. 167–8 (Descriptio Kambriae, I. 3). Cf., for example, how king-lists and, especially, genealogies endowed 12th- and 13th-century Scots kings with antiquity and, therefore, legitimacy by claiming that they were descended from kings of Ireland in the distant past: D. Broun, The Irish Identity of the Kingdom of the Scots (Woodbridge, 1999), ch. 8. ⁶¹ See the genealogical tables in AWR, pp. [xlviii–lvi], and cf. Bartlett, Making of Europe, 274–9. In Ireland, the greater native dynasties of this period tended to adhere to traditional names, whereas lesser dynasties were readier to adopt Anglo-Norman names: F. Verstraten, ‘Naming Practices among the Irish Secular Nobility in the High Middle Ages’, JMH, 32 (2006), 43–53, at 52–3. ⁶² Cf. Stacey, ‘King’, 39; Davies, Conquest, 252–3.

50

Huw Pryce

of the northern dynasty. The same idea was implicit in the new title adopted by Llywelyn ap Iorwerth in the 1230s, namely ‘prince of Aberffraw’—surely a shorthand for ‘prince of Wales’—‘and lord of Snowdon’.⁶³ These symbolic references to Aberffraw further illustrate the adaptability of native culture, as apparently archaic language and imagery were deployed to express contemporary political aspirations. The revival of inauguration rituals, often on sites with prehistoric monuments, in the wake of the revival of Irish kings’ power from the later thirteenth century onwards represents a more extreme instance of a similar phenomenon.⁶⁴ For the native rulers of Wales, then, an openness to new inﬂuences from the Anglo-French world formed part of a broader strategy to increase their power and status vis-à-vis not only other native rulers and Marcher lords but also especially, perhaps, the nobility within their own lands. In their desire to achieve, say, more effective military forces, greater cash revenues, or a unitary succession, Welsh princes were, of course, motivated by the same kinds of imperatives as many other rulers in Europe; nor were the princes unique in cultivating external connections and example as one of the means of fulﬁlling such goals. Yet these modernizing ambitions did not signal a wholesale rejection of the princes’ native inheritance: on the contrary, that inheritance continued to be fostered by the princes, who could hardly afford to dispense with such an essential ideological prop to their authority. The continuing salience of native tradition was probably reinforced by the political division of Wales into spheres of Welsh and Anglo-Norman or English power, as recurrent conﬂict between these spheres, including attempts by kings of England to assert their authority over the Welsh, served to sharpen cultural and ethnic differences. In addition, such conﬂict, as well as that within and between Welsh ruling houses themselves, contributed to dynastic and regnal instability that, in turn, placed constraints on the ability of rulers to effect change. The political struggles that have traditionally occupied centre stage in interpretations of this period of Welsh history therefore provide an essential context for understanding the wider changes which native rulers tried to make and whose importance Rees Davies did so much to illuminate. At the same time, though, the precise form of those changes was shaped by a complex interplay of external and indigenous inﬂuences that merit attention as factors in their own right. The attempts of Welsh rulers to assimilate aspects of Anglo-French aristocratic ⁶³ AWR, 76–8. ‘Snowdon’ referred to the prince’s territory in Gwynedd. ⁶⁴ K. Simms, From Kings to Warlords: The Changing Political Structure of Gaelic Ireland in the Later Middle Ages (Woodbridge, 1987), 16–17, 21–36; E. FitzPatrick, Royal Inauguration in Gaelic Ireland c. 1100–1600: A Cultural Landscape Study (Woodbridge, 2004). Cf. also the inauguration of Alexander III as king of Scots in 1249: J. Bannerman, ‘The King’s Poet and the Inauguration of Alexander III’, SHR, 68 (1989), 120–49; D. Broun, ‘The Origin of the Stone of Scone as a National Icon’, in R. Welander, D. J. Breeze, and T. O. Clancy (eds.), The Stone of Destiny: Artefact and Icon (Edinburgh, 2003), 183–97.

Welsh Rulers and European Change, c. 1100–1282

51

culture, probably largely in order to impress their own people, are an important part of the story, and show that those rulers were responsive to developments originating outside their lands. However, there is another side to the story, too, namely the ways in which these inﬂuences were selected and adapted—in short, the contexts of their reception in the native principalities. For, difﬁcult though it is to recover those contexts in detail, we need to try and understand the circumstances facing Welsh rulers at home in order to assess the signiﬁcance of what they were able to achieve, and, hence, of the part they played in a much wider, and highly diverse, process of European change.⁶⁵ ⁶⁵ I am very grateful to Robin Frame and John Watts for commenting on earlier versions of this essay. It has also beneﬁted from the opportunity to try out some of its ideas in a paper given to the British Academy Research Network on ‘Political Culture in Norman and Angevin England (1066–1272) in Comparative Perspective’, meeting in Durham University, as well as in a lecture hosted by the Department of Celtic Languages and Literatures at Harvard University.

5 Bede and the Unchosen Race Alexander Murray

Time that is intolerant Of the brave and innocent And indifferent in a week To a beautiful physique Worships language and forgives Everyone by whom it lives. Time that with this strange excuse Pardoned Kipling and his views And will pardon Paul Claudel Pardons them for writing well.

Thus Auden on the poet Yeats.¹ The law extends to historians, and may explain why so few historians are ‘forgiven’, why (that is) those who spend their lives trying to recover the past are forgotten once they enter it. The contents-list of an old Cambridge History will conﬁrm this: who remembers the authors now? The historians who escape this oblivion are a small elite, and they do so not because we swallow their views but because they wrote history well—look at Gibbon and Macaulay. Among these English immortals one stands on his own. The author of The Ecclesiastical History of the English People,² wrote history well by every criterion: a sense of time (source inter alia of his pioneering of the  dating system); a nose for a good story; mastery of readable Latin; and the stirrings, at least, of a critical use of sources. These and other virtues have recommended Bede’s History to a kaleidoscope of cultures covering the twelve and more centuries since his death in 735—and contributing, incidentally, from soon after that date, to his recognition as a ‘saint.’ ¹ W. H. Auden, ‘In Memory of W. B. Yeats’, in Collected Shorter Poems (London, 1950), 66. ² Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, ed. C. Plummer, Venerabilis Bedae opera historica, 2 vols. in 1 (Oxford, 1896), and ed. B. Colgrave and R. A. B. Mynors, Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Oxford, 1969). I have used both editions. A reference in the form ‘HE, V.2, 347b’ will mean ‘Historia ecclesiastica, Book V, Chapter 2, page 347, second quarter of the page counting downwards’, following Plummer’s page-numbers (noted in the margin of the later edition).

Bede and the Unchosen Race

53

Because that canonization happened early, it dispensed with the later reﬁnement known as advocatus diaboli, counsel for the prosecution. A volume honouring the late Rees Davies is an occasion to ﬁll that gap. Rees Davies was a Welsh historian who wrote about, among other subjects, the English; Bede, an English historian who wrote about, among other subjects, the Welsh—or rather, in both cases, not the Welsh (a Germanic term for ‘foreign’) but the Brytaniaid (Britons), to use an equivalent long applied to themselves by those entitled to do so. The aim of the following essay is to show that Bede’s references to the Brytaniaid betray a racial animus, an animus distinct enough to have ensured that, if written today, his book would be banned in state schools, and one not to be explained away by the justiﬁcations he offers for it. Bede compares unfavourably in this respect with our late colleague, who (as no reader of this volume will need telling) wrote evenhandedly about all the hybrids of our happily united kingdom. Since the History is mostly about the English, let us begin with them. Today ‘the English People’ seem to have existed for ever. But they had their own creation story, as Germanic migrants to post-Roman Britain—whom for convenience we call ‘Anglo-Saxons’—gradually came to see themselves and be seen as one ‘people’, and by that name. The story ﬁrst peeps into view in the late sixth century, and continues at least to the late tenth. It has been pieced together by a series of outstanding recent studies, so all that needs doing here is to boil down their ﬁndings to the bones, to clarify the argument to come later.³ In the misty genesis of the gens Anglorum two impulses stand out—in seeming contradiction to each other, but only in appearance. One, now the less tangible but then probably more so, was language. For their early sense of unity the English owed more to language than their neighbours the Franks—whose Völkerwanderung was roughly contemporary but who knew who they were before they began it and, once in Gaul, with its Latin-speaking city elites, began to desert their Germanic dialects for the latinate one which would ﬁnish up as ‘French’. The Anglo-Saxons were the opposite. They came in largely independent groupings, swamped such Latin-speakers as they found, and kept their own dialects, which slowly drew away collectively from the dialects they had left behind on the continent and converged with each other. This, at least, is a likely theory. It would account inter alia for the existence in the early eighth century of a motley Germanic koiné just homogeneous enough, in the face of a ³ Essential: H. E. J. Cowdrey, ‘Bede and the ‘‘English People’’ ’, Journal of Religious History, 11 (1981), 501–23; P. Wormald, ‘Bede, the Bretwaldas and the Origins of the Gens Anglorum’, in P. Wormald et al. (eds.), Ideal and Reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Society (Oxford, 1983), 99–129; N. Brooks, Bede and the English, Jarrow Lecture, 1999 ( Jarrow, 2000); and, esp. for language, T. Charles-Edwards, ‘The Making of Nations in Britain and Ireland in the Early Middle Ages’, in R. Evans (ed.), Lordship and Learning: Studies in Memory of Trevor Aston (Woodbridge, 2004), 11–36, esp. 13–24.

54

Alexander Murray

variety of Latin and Celtic alternatives, for a West Saxon law-code to refer to it as ‘Englisc’.⁴ That linguistic development leaves next to no record in Bede’s History. Bede more than makes up for that by his treatment of a second impulse to English selfconsciousness: the Church. Popes, then as later, preferred dealing with distinct peoples under distinct rulers, rather than with formless multitudes. So in 597 Gregory the Great sent Augustine as a missionary to the Angli. Augustine went ﬁrst to a king, of Kent, whom he believed to have effective lordship over all these Angli. There was wishful thinking here; but the right wishful thinking, sustained, makes history, and did in this case, as old Canterbury was refurbished as a miniature Rome, to beam Christianity to all whom the missionaries saw as Angli.⁵ That impulse to English unity was reinforced in 668 when the papacy sent another new broom to be archbishop of Canterbury. Theodore established a chequerboard of dioceses to cover approximately the area we now call England (with vaguer northern and western boundaries). All this and more is retold in Bede’s History, with his obvious endorsement. He could not have written the History, certainly not under that title, if the tale it told had run differently. The story of how the settlers got the collective name of Angli is different, but runs parallel.⁶ A dozen or more immigrant Germanic groupings can be identiﬁed from Bede alone, and more from place-names. Among them the Saxones are conspicuous, their name formidable since Roman times for piracy or mercenary service. As the immigrants settled, anyone wanting to refer to them as a whole at ﬁrst called them Saxones. But the Angli, too, had brought their name with them. Its replacement of Saxones for general duty began visibly, again, in the late sixth century, when Gregory the Great was alleged to have met Angli slaves in Rome. Gregory used the term subsequently, and from him it passed to his missionary, Augustine, and, hence, to Canterbury. From there, its conquest of Britain remained slow. Bede himself, in an early work of 703, still calls the settlers Saxones. Only in 725, when surrounded by documents from Canterbury, did he begin to waver, as he still does in Book I of the History (drafted around then), where he uses Saxones at one moment and Angli at another. Then, from Book II he settles for Angli, so decisively that he will change Saxones to Angli if he ﬁnds Saxones in a written source. (We shall notice a similar ﬁrming-up of his term for the Britons late in Book I.) In the Celtic world, where Bede was less read, ⁴ Charles-Edwards, ‘Making of Nations’, 18, n. 42; cf. 23–4; more sceptically, B. Ward-Perkins, ‘Why Did the Anglo-Saxons Not Become More British?’, EHR, 115 (2000), 513–33, at 524, n. 3. ⁵ N. Brooks, ‘Canterbury, Rome and the Construction of English identity’, in J. H. M. Smith (ed.), Early Medieval Rome and the Christian West: Essays in Honour of Donald A. Bullough (Leiden, 2000), 221–46. ⁶ M. Richter, ‘Bede’s Angli: Angles or English?’, Peritia, 3 (1984), 99–114 (on the term ‘Saxon’, esp. 105–7), and Brooks, Bede and the English, esp. 6–7, 9–10, 15–18, 25.

Bede and the Unchosen Race

55

Celtic forms of the old Saxones remained normal. The Carolingians, who loved Bede but had other loyalties, nourished the useful hybrid, Anglo-Saxones, before switching to Angli in the tenth century. As that date indicates, the creation story of the English would go on well after Bede’s time. But we have seen enough of it to recognize that his History played a part in it. Bede’s book proclaimed that the English were one gens or people, called by that name, and with a coherent past, one which morticed them into the more distant past of the classical Romans (whose stone ruins stood around) and the existing Roman Church. After Bede, the people most committed to fortifying English national cohesion became his publishers. The most notable was Alfred. In the 870s Alfred needed urgently to unify the English against invasion by their not-too-distant Scandinavian cousins, so he impressed on his subjects those features which made them like each other and unlike the invaders, above all their Christianity, a message of which Bede’s History was the perfect vehicle. So Alfred organized a translation of it into ‘Englisc’, appointing it to be read out in churches.⁷ Alfred’s tenth-century kings extended his rule to cover the new Scandinavian settlers, who, blinking from the journey, accepted Christianity more quickly than the Anglo-Saxons had done, and added a few new, northern, dialects to the melting-pot of ‘Englisc’. As national identity thus became ever more articulate, it promoted the book which told the Englishmen’s island story as they wished it to be told,⁸ by a reciprocal action: Bede boosted Englishness; Englishness boosted Bede. Before turning to the verso side of that story I would like to offer a general reﬂection on the part told so far. The Church, we have just seen, helped with the creation of Englishness—not just because churchmen wrote most of the records, but because they and their wishful thinking contributed to making things happen that way. ‘The Church’, however, means also ‘Christianity’, which means also ‘religion’. The relation of religion to national identity is one of the hottest of all historical topics, and one still warm (at least). Bede’s History is a document to it, and invites analysis in that context. Seen from one side, religion is an individual matter. We die alone; and if Ezekiel 18: 30 is anything to go by (not to mention a sheaf of other texts), each of us will have to answer for his own actions. But seen from another side, religion has also a social dimension. Historians should not need telling of this: it is what much of their subject is about. In practice, the two dimensions combine, in ever shifting combinations. Those who doubt this should attend a British ‘Remembrance Sunday’ service, where they will hear the most explicitly individualistic of hymns, ‘Abide with me’, sung in rapt unison by thousands. ⁷ S. Foot, ‘The Making of Angelcynn: English Identity Before the Norman Conquest’, TRHS, 6th ser., 6 (1996), 25–49. ⁸ N. Banton, ‘Monastic Reform and the Uniﬁcation of Tenth-century England’, Studies in Church History, 18 (1982), 71–95.

56

Alexander Murray

The social dimension of religion raises a political question: how should the faithful be organized? In Matthew 18: 20 Christ promised that ‘When two or three are gathered together in my name, I am among them.’ He stopped short of deﬁning just how the two or three will know who they are, or when and how they should meet. Magniﬁed to a scale of two or three thousand, or million, those questions run like a range of Apennines along the history of civilization. Notionally there have been three answers. In one model, a people or tribe can profess a single religion wherever the tribe goes; the ‘two or three’ are then organized roughly as the tribe is. In a second model, the rulers of a territory can decree that everyone living on it must observe the state religion, on the grounds that the ruler, if he believes it himself, may feel duty-bound to make sure his subjects enjoy its beneﬁts, too. In a third model, the two or three (million) form an autonomous society, with its own rule-book, independent of ethnic or territorial arrangements; you join it if you wish to and can meet the conditions. All three models, tribal, territorial, and ecclesiastical, have long histories, intertwined in various shapes and crossing over. A casual observer might wish to equate the three respectively with the three ‘semitic’ religions, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, pointing (for evidence) to expressions like ‘anti-semitic’ (for anti-Jewish) and ‘Dar al Islam’ (‘Country of Islam’), and to the distinction almost all western languages keep between Christianity and Christendom. In reality the histories of all three traditions are more complex, and that of Christianity is the most complex of all. Let us see why. For the ﬁrst three centuries, those of the martyrdoms, Christianity enjoyed the pure status of an autonomous ‘gathering’ (the original meaning of ecclesia). Territorial emperors, and in their turn tribal Germans, then launched Christianity on an odyssey through the other two forms. For however free Christianity might be of earthly constitutions in theory, in practice it was inﬂuenced by them. In particular, after the fall of Rome, it became identiﬁed ﬁrst with certain peoples, and later with the territories those peoples made their own. When nation states arrived, to formalize the link of people and land, their rulers consequently put a high value on religious uniformity. The vigour achieved by these nation states would be inconceivable if they had not professed Christianity. They repaid part of that debt by getting Christianity taught and guarded wherever their writs ran. That meant, for a time, much of the world. But in doing so they ran up another debt. It touched the emotions which tribes, land, and religion can each invoke. The emotions proper to Christianity became contaminated. Understood strictly, these should be autonomous. The promises of a God who died alone and under torture provided for all man’s hopes and fears. A Christian scheme for the emotions, that is, of ‘love’—as set out, for instance, in Dante’s Divine Comedy —admits no rival. But peoples, and land, and especially the states which fuse these together, are such rivals. They, too, make emotional calls. The gathering-together of two or three million people

Bede and the Unchosen Race

57

can generate loyalties independent of religion, which often constitute a danger to it and are at times positively harmful. These loyalties were present in the alloys from which Europe grew. They helped to nurture its religion, but at the cost of the latter’s purity These considerations form the context from which we may now take a new look at Bede’s History. Bede envisages all three models of religious organization. The conversions of Kings Ethelbert and Edwin—who reﬂected ﬁrst and then decided—were models of the Christian principle. But both kings knew that their conversions had big consequences for their peoples and lands: Ethelbert’s was allegedly followed by the baptism of ‘more than ten thousand’ of his subjects; Edwin’s, by month-long dawn-to-dusk catechetical sessions for his.⁹ Of the three forms, for all that, the History gives dominance to one in particular: the one enshrined in the title. It proclaimed the ecclesiastical history of a gens. In view of the public Bede wrote for (whom we shall come back to) he perhaps had no choice in making it so. The choice was nevertheless made easier by the principal preoccupation of Bede’s studies. He was above all a biblical exegete. The Bible offers its interpreters a unique freedom, denied to their Muslim and even to their Jewish opposite numbers. The two Testaments together cover well over a thousand years of divine revelation. If revelation is understood as progressive, alias evolutionary, then a span of this length will necessarily produce apparent inconsistencies, raising the problem of reconciling earlier with later phases. The ﬁrst Christian exegetes met this problem by interpreting Old Testament models as the ‘type’, or allegorical image, of those of the New, and when the two appeared to clash, the New was the one to follow, with acknowledgement that the Old had already foreshadowed it. A well-known example will illustrate the mechanism. In early Christianity, Israel’s battles for God came to be understood as internal, spiritual ﬁghting. Then there was regression. For early medieval Christians, the distinction between physical and spiritual ﬁghting could prove too subtle, Old Testament models too attractive, to be allegorized away. Ulﬁlas, missionary to the Black Sea Goths in the fourth century, acknowledged as much when he dropped the books of Kings from his Gothic translation of the Bible, on the grounds that the Goths were unlikely, if presented with the bloody exemplars of ancient Israel, to read them as allegory. The Germanic West, with its unbowdlerized Vulgate, lacked that particular protection. But the Latin-reading clergy on whom it might have relied to allegorize away the militarism of ancient Israel shared too much with their lay clientele to make this effect more than partial. Whence, in certain times and places, the Christian endorsement of aggressive war.¹⁰ ⁹ HE, II.15, 115a. ¹⁰ In which the role of exegesis is illustrated with unusual precision by J. Dunbabin, ‘The Maccabees as Exemplars in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries’, in K. Walsh and D. Wood (eds.), The Bible in the Medieval World: Essays in Memory of Beryl Smalley, Studies in Church History: Subsidia, 4 (Oxford, 1985), 31–41.

58

Alexander Murray

Of such Old Testament notions, inviting interpretation as ‘types’ but not always receiving it, none, that of ‘holy war’ apart, has had as powerful an effect as that of a Chosen People. This idea embodied the ﬁrst of our three forms of religious organization. In primitive centuries, when most human beings were organized ethnically or not at all, religion followed the same rule. But Christianity made it obsolete. In the Church’s ‘New Israel’, not ties of birth and marriage but baptism and the inner conversion that goes with it were to be the deﬁning qualities of the societas christiana. But these subtleties, too, proved too much for some patriotic spirits. As Roman world-government disintegrated among selfconsciously distinct peoples who then became Christian, their exegetes tended to cast their own gens as the ‘New Israel’. Examples of the tendency run down the centuries. But it found particularly appropriate conditions in the early middle ages. The legions were not long out of Britain before Gildas, spokesman for the Britons, perched as they were on the edge of the world and as biblically minded as any of their seventeenth-century descendants, dubbed his people the praesens Israel, God’s chastisement of whom was just like that of Israel in the time of Jeremiah.¹¹ A generation later Gregory of Tours, whether or not on Gildas’s inspiration, claimed the same honour to his newly converted Franks.¹² Unsurprisingly, a century later, we ﬁnd Gildas’s idea, turned on its head in English favour, in Bede. The idea is present already in Bede’s Book I (when the English are still ‘Saxons’). God already had plans for the Saxons, Bede says, when they were in Germany and still pagan. We historians may protest that God cannot have meant all Saxons. Those who stayed at home were still so stubbornly pagan four centuries later as almost to turn the edge of Charlemagne’s missionary sword. But Bede’s God had singled out the future migrants as plebem suam, in divine foreknowledge (praescivit) of their future role as vessels of Christianity.¹³ Every step in the Anglo-Saxon conquest duly has God’s providence behind it, from Vortigern’s reckless invitation to the Saxons onwards. He made it, Bede says, with ‘divine consent’.¹⁴ English predestination comes even into Bede’s calendar calculations. He kept a mental tally of the years since the adventus Anglorum: ‘285, approximately’, as the History’ s last paragraph says triumphantly¹⁵ (not so approximately, in fact, by contemporary standards). That ‘285’ reads like a regnal year—the standard dating device, whose extension to the reign of Christ may even have had this among its other recommendations, for Bede, that it gave the 285-year reign of his Angli in a respectable home, conferring legitimacy.¹⁶ ¹¹ De excidio Britonum, 26, § 1, ed. M. Winterbottom (London and Chichester, 1978), 98; Charles-Edwards, ‘Making of Nations’, 25–6. Inﬂuence: D. Howlett, ‘Early Insular Latin Poetry’, Peritia, 17–18 (2003–4), 61–109, esp. 82–91. ¹² R. McKitterick, The Frankish Church and the Carolingian Reforms (London, 1977), 5, with references. ¹³ HE, I.22, 42a; Cowdrey, ‘Bede and ‘‘the English People’’ ’, 504. ¹⁴ HE, I.14, 30c. ¹⁵ Cf. Brooks, Bede and the English, 29, n. 46. ¹⁶ Cf. ibid., 4–5.

Bede and the Unchosen Race

59

The English, then, were God’s chosen. It follows that the Britons, their main victims, were unchosen. The History gives them an appropriately invidious role. Let us begin our examination of it at the most obvious point: Bede’s account of the battle of Chester, probably in 616,¹⁷ where Æthelfrith of Northumbria defeated and massacred an army of Britons.¹⁸ Bede has just described Æthelfrith as a king gloriae cupidissimus, who, in his nineteen years as king, ‘killed or enslaved’ more Britons than any other war-leader, anywhere, and expelled the remainder from their lands to clear them for English settlement.¹⁹ Late in his career Æthelfrith turned his attention to the area we would call Cheshire, where the Britons had the headquarters of their church at Bangor-on-Dee. For three days as the conqueror approached, the Bangor monks and priests fasted and prayed. When battle was imminent these priests, unarmed, gathered on a hill near the battleﬁeld to continue their prayers for a British victory. On arriving, Æthelfrith asked who they were and what was their purpose, and, when told, said they counted as combatants and should be killed ﬁrst; and they were, to the number of 1,200, 50 escaping. Then Æthelfrith did the same to the Britons’ army. Bede here describes a victory won just over a hundred years before he wrote, by the grandfather of the king who, more than any other, made the Northumbrian Renaissance possible. That king, Aldfrith, was a Christian. His grandfather had not been. But there is no doubt whose side Bede is on. The British force at Chester is a nefanda militia.²⁰ Casting typology to the winds, Bede compares Æthelfrith to Saul, the Israelite king who (we can read in I Kings 47) had ‘fought against Israel’s enemies on every side [listed] and invariably defeated them’. Æthelfrith was like Saul, Bede says, ‘save only that [Æthelfrith] was ignorant of the true religion’.²¹ ‘Save only’: the detail which, in this unprocessed Old Testament example, served as sole justiﬁcation for ethnic cleansings, has become for Bede a dispensable detail. Bede nevertheless argues that the British rout was just, as divine retribution, called down earlier in the chapter by Augustine of Canterbury, for the British leaders’ stubbornness in refusing terms for co-operation with the Roman mission. It cannot escape us that this ﬁrst English saint had, in effect, called down a curse. Priestly curses were to be another Old Testament feature calling for reinterpretation as Christian criteria took root, nor were they an Old Testament monopoly. Druidic curses dated from well before such Christianity as the missionaries brought. They would be ‘baptized’ as maledictory excommunications, until theologians came to recognize that curses might be breaches of Christian ¹⁷ N. Chadwick, ‘The Battle of Chester: A Study of Sources’, in ead. (ed.), Celt and Saxon: Studies in the Early British Border (Cambridge, 1964), 167–85. Date (177–8) qualiﬁed by C. Stancliffe, ‘The British Church and the Mission of Augustine’, in R. Gameson (ed.), St Augustine and the Conversion of England (Stroud, 1999), 107–51, at 126–9. ¹⁸ HE, I.34, 71bc. ¹⁹ HE, II.2, 83d–5a. ²⁰ HE, II.2, 84c. ²¹ HE, I.34, 71bc.

60

Alexander Murray

charity, and re-think their rationale.²² This was not Bede’s world. His was one of the ‘immanent justice’.²³ Curses belonged to it. Immanent or not, the British rout was still justice, for Bede. He underlines this by emphasizing the concessions Augustine had offered the Britons by reducing his demands to two: the acceptance of Roman authority (on the calendar and certain rites); and help in evangelizing the pagan English. We know that both themes were close to Bede’s heart. They were all the closer, I suggest, because the Britons were not. Their recalcitrance on these two issues put the Britons in a worse light. Aloofness towards Roman authority was nowhere else punished as severely, in Bede’s History. Æthelfrith was killed shortly after the battle of Chester, having deﬁed all authority, Rome’s included. There is no hint that his death was a punishment.²⁴ The Irish long resisted Roman authority on the Easter question, but they incurred punishment no more severe than humiliation in debate. This commutation was not offered to the Britons. Bede—evangelizer as he was, and chronicler of evangelizers—records no attempt by English churchmen, after Augustine’s generation, to win the Britons over to Rome by persuasion, as happened with the Irish. Britons deserved only massacre. Bede treats his second charge as equally serious: that the Britons had failed to evangelize the Anglo-Saxons. The exact degree of truth in this charge cannot be assessed. We have only enough evidence to show it was not the whole truth, and was in some regions the opposite;²⁵ and that Bede did not have much evidence either—his History being so well written that we ignore the interstellar spaces between its episodes, spaces reﬂecting, for the most part, gaps in Bede’s evidence, most of all in respect of Wessex and Mercia,²⁶ where the Britons’ Christian inﬂuence was probably strongest. In a word, Bede made this charge on a narrow factual base,²⁷ and must have known he was doing so. But the charge raises a second question. To treat it as a charge at all implies an assumption, with its own history.²⁸ St Matthew’s Gospel tells disciples to ‘go and teach all nations, and baptize them’ (Matthew 28: 19). But Christian observance of this Gospel injunction, as of others, has been uneven. For long periods it has been ignored, either on the doctrinal ground that divine rather than human agency is the proper source for conversion, or, more commonly, on the practical ²² L. K. Little, Benedictine Maledictions: Liturgical Cursing in Romanesque France (Ithaca, NY, 1993). Antiquity: Caesar, De bello Gallico, I.1. ²³ K. G. Cram, Iudicium Belli: Zum Rechtscharakter des Krieges in deutschen Mittlelalter, Beiheft zum Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, 5 (Münster-in-Westphalen, 1955). ²⁴ HE, II.12, 110bc. ²⁵ S. Bassett, ‘Church and Diocese in the West Midlands: The Transition from British to Anglo-Saxon Control’, in J. Blair and R. Sharpe (eds.), Pastoral Care Before the Parish (Leicester, 1992), 13–40. ²⁶ D. P. Kirby, ‘Bede’s Native Sources for the Historia ecclesiastica’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 48 (1966), 341–71. ²⁷ Just possibly as narrow as one letter: Stancliffe,‘British Church’, 110, 130–1. ²⁸ For the following: R. Fletcher, The Conversion of Europe (London, 1997), esp. chs. 1–4.

Bede and the Unchosen Race

61

one that churchmen are too busy. This was the case with imperial bishops after Constantine. Their main task, in a nominally Christian empire, was to teach and baptize populations under their own jurisdiction. Efforts to convey these beneﬁts to outsiders are, for the most part, conspicuous for their absence. To give just one example: the letter which St Remigius sent to Clovis (probably in 481–2) to congratulate him on succeeding to rule over the Franks, carries no hint that Clovis might consider becoming Christian.²⁹ If that surprises us it is because we tend to ‘missionize’ early European Christianity, assigning each nation its apostle, preferably with a date. That view makes for easy memorization in liturgy and school, serves national sentiment, and also appeals to the Whig in us, seeing evolution as ever on the move upwards and onwards. But there are two dangers in the view. The more obvious is that it oversimpliﬁes a process necessarily complex, leaving out, in particular, much of the power-politics which we know came into the picture. The less obvious danger is that, by adopting this view, we take sides with one contemporary standpoint on the matter, when there were two. In the three centuries before Bede was born, the Church was itself converted from one to the other, as it became mission-minded. The conversion was slow, resulting from conditions respectively on the rim, and at the heart, of the old Roman world. On the rim, we can observe a hereditary British cleric, c.400, labouring to persuade his own son not to go and evangelize nearby pagans. That position was conventional. The failure of persuasion in that case marked the opening of a new era, since the son, Patrick, did go off, and—almost certainly with help from others later airbrushed out of the picture by Patrick’s devotees³⁰—began developments in Ireland destined to give Europe its quintissential missionaries, the Irish Scotti. But the process remained slow. Early wandering Scotti were probably more ascetic exiles than missionaries; and it is characteristic of Bede, mouthpiece of the triumphant missionizers, that his History foreshortens the process by treating the most famous of those vagrant Irish ascetics, St Columba (d. 597), as simply as a missionary.³¹ Meanwhile, at the heart of the old Roman world, Rome had begun the slow volte-face from east to west which would culminate ﬁrst in 800, and establish the medieval ground-plan by which an autonomous ‘spiritual’ power was ringed by nations in some ill-deﬁned way subordinate. Each party to that plan, nations and pope, needed the other. All had to be Catholic, and be persuaded to be if they were not. Whence the rise of mission in the papal agenda, reaching its high point under Gregory the Great. It was Gregory’s missionary ideal, blending (after setbacks) with that of the Scotti, that Bede idealized, and in the sequel passed on as the recognized model to late Carolingian Europe—and indirectly to us. ²⁹ Fletcher, Conversion, 105. ³⁰ T. Charles-Edwards, ‘Palladius, Prosper, and Leo the Great: Mission and Primatial Authority’, in D. N. Dumville et al. (eds.), Saint Patrick,  493–1993 (Woodbridge, 1993), 1–12, at 9. ³¹ HE, III.4, 133ab; Fletcher, Conversion, 93, 95. Bede’s History as model, ibid., 234.

62

Alexander Murray

This conversion of the western Church to missionizing left the Britons in a backwater, as ghosts from an earlier epoch. Left free, they might have gone with the change, as the Irish did. As it was, they were crushed by the very power-politics which Bede’s idealized vision left out; and their memory was damned by his apotheosis, instinctive rhetorician as he was, of the one quality in which he believed his adversaries to fall short. When Bede is conscious of depreciating Britons he offers justiﬁcation for his attitude. Sometimes he offers no justiﬁcation, and then it is because he is unconscious of an animus we have to detect through its casual symptoms. Among these, let us look ﬁrst at names. To designate the Britons Bede uses two terms: Brittani (second declension), and Brettones (third). Plummer’s 1896 edition indexed these separately. The 1969 edition by Colgrave and Mynors mixes them together, implying a view that is now a declared orthodoxy, that the words are synonyms.³² But when evidence is slender it matters to record ﬁne differences. Brittani come exclusively in Book I:³³ they resist Caesar stoutly, apply to the pope to be made Christian,³⁴ keep the faith until Pelagius corrupts them,³⁵ and, after that lapse, decline to the point of weakly granting land to the Saxons, and calling in Gallic help against the Pelagians.³⁶ The Brittani then vanish. They are replaced by Brettones, a name Bede has already begun using and which, after Book I, Chapter 17, becomes exclusive for the remaining 63 allusions to Britons. When not used just factually, the new term has a pejorative connotation. The distinction between these two terms is partly a matter of sources. Brittani (more usually Britanni) was normal classical usage. Orosius and other speciﬁc Latin writings stand behind passages where Bede uses the term.³⁷ But Bede elsewhere showed himself capable of emending terms in his sources.³⁸ He could have changed this one; or (more to the point) could have dropped his later term, Brettones, to ﬁt his otherwise conventional Latin. It was not as if he had no time. The History was open to unhurried revision.³⁹ Instead, he left an anomaly, calling the same people by two different names. Why? To answer, we have to look more closely at the term Bretto and its family. Britto (with an ‘i’, third declension) was known to classical Latin, but remained ³² Cf. Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources (Oxford, 1975) (‘Brit-’); Charles-Edwards, ‘Making of Nations’, 25. ³³ Cf. Plummer’s index; and, with context, and scrupulously distinguished, P. F. Jones, A Concordance to the Historia ecclesiastica of Bede (Cambridge, Mass., 1929), 60–3. Jones adds one example each of Brittanicus and the genitive Britanni. I have not distinguished, as Jones does, between single and double ‘t’s (or ‘n’s) in either word, but used the commoner forms of each, and have omitted rubrics. ³⁴ HE, I.4, 16ab. ³⁵ HE, I.l0, 23d–24ab. ³⁶ HE, I.17, 33d. ³⁷ The only cases not clear cut are HE, I.12, 27c (‘Brittanorum manu’) and I.15, 31b (‘donantibus Brittanis’). If not quoted verbatim here, Gildas was at Bede’s elbow. I thank Professor Thomas Charles-Edwards for advice in this connection, though he is not responsible for my conclusions. ³⁸ As in changing ‘Saxon’ to ‘Angle’ in following the Life St Fursey: Richter, ‘Bede’s Angli’, 10; Brooks, Bede and the English, 16; time for revision, ibid., 7. ³⁹ HE, Praef., p. 5.

Bede and the Unchosen Race

63

rare and poetic, and without an ‘e’. Modern dictionaries of medieval Latin give plenty of instances of both Britto and Bretto, treating them as identical. But there is none of Bretto before Bede. Did he coin the term? Or was he not, more probably, writing down a vernacular term he had heard used in speech. Linguists assure us that the ‘i’-to-‘e’ change would ﬁt this hypothesis. If this is indeed the explanation for the change in terminology—which must have some explanation—it is a further symptom of Bede’s animus. The intrusion of a vernacular name into educated prose can express contempt, as ‘Pommy’ or ‘Yank’ might do in modern English.⁴⁰ There is a further consideration. As we saw, Bede’s use of Angli to denote the ensemble of Germanic settlers stabilized only after Book I.⁴¹ We have seen the same stabilization in the use of Brettones as if the concept of two nations (both less distinct among themselves than the two names suggest, as we know from their cross-nation marriages and military alliances) crystallized in Bede’s mind as he wrote. There had to be bad Britons to offset against the good English. Another such symptom relates to the Britons’ origin. When listing the inhabitants of the island, Bede records in his ﬁrst chapter that the Britons ‘are said’ (ut fertur) to have come from Armorica.⁴² Armorica, a term formed from Celtic words for ‘sea-side’, was the name Romans gave to the northern seaboard of Gaul, especially, latterly, its western end. The best modern commentator on Bede’s History praises Bede at this point for showing ‘necessary caution’, in qualifying his assertion with an ut fertur.⁴³ Caution was indeed necessary, since it was there to mask an opposite quality in the assertion itself, effrontery. No serious evidence before Bede says the Britons came from Armorica. A lot of evidence, both before and after him, points the other way. Everyone knew and knows, it is true, that the sea we now call the English Channel was then a road for seafarers, and that traders, and the odd political refugee, came and went in both directions.⁴⁴ But Bede is not saying that. He is saying the Brettones (whose name makes its world début at this very point) were immigrants. Other data attest a ﬂood of north-to-south cross-Channel emigration in the ﬁfth and sixth centuries, to populate what we call Brittany. That emigration happened at just the epoch when the German immigrants were arriving in large numbers.⁴⁵ Doubts have been expressed that these émigrés were refugees from the Anglo-Saxons. Doubters ⁴⁰ K. H. Jackson, Language and History in Early Britain (Edinburgh, 1953), 567, 672, allows a primitive Welsh term *Britton (Welsh Brython) as possible inﬂuence on an Old English form Brettas, which might be the source of Bede’s expression. I owe this suggestion to Professor Huw Pryce. ⁴¹ Brooks, Bede and the English, 15. ⁴² HE, I.1, 11c. ⁴³ J. M. Wallace-Hadrill, Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People: A Historical Commentary (Oxford, 1988), 8. ⁴⁴ T. Mommsen, The Provinces of the Roman Empire, trans. W. P. Dickson (London, 1909), i. 173–4; P. Salway, Roman Britain (Oxford, 1981), 24–5. ⁴⁵ P. Galliou and M. Jones, The Bretons (Oxford, and Cambridge, Mass., 1991), esp. 128–33. Economic and geographical motives: ibid., 130–1; cf. Salway, Roman Britain, 492.

64

Alexander Murray

point to alternative, economic motives for the migration, and to the fact that the new Breton saints’ and place-names suggest that the refugees’ provenance was exclusively from Devon and Cornwall, the corner of Britain least affected by the Anglo-Saxons. But doubts can go the other way, too. Economically, why should any Britons wish to give up on their island at just the moment when Anglo-Saxons were going home to rhapsodize to their continental relations about the insulae fertilitas?⁴⁶ As for the Cornish and Devonian place- and saints’ names, they may prove that the émigrés sailed from Britain’s south-west landing-stage, but not that they began their journeys there. Bede’s assertion that the Brettones were immigrants is anyway not that of an impartial scholar. In any Völkerwanderung it pays any group to portray its rivals as newcomers. In today’s eastern Europe, Romanians say it of Magyars, Serbs of Albanians, and vice versa, each gens claiming what the commentators call ‘historic priority’, and reading the very sparse evidence accordingly.⁴⁷ Before Bede, Gildas had done the same to those earlier scourges, the Picts, dismissively calling them transmarini —and thereby setting modern scholars to pore in puzzlement over their atlases.⁴⁸ Geoffrey of Monmouth would know Bede’s game, because he played it, too. Part of the very purpose of Geoffrey’s Historia Regum Britanniae was to exorcise the effect of Bede’s aspersion on the newness of British origins by supplying a longer and nobler version. So it was probably not caution, but guilt, that we should read in Bede’s ut fertur. This bit of his History was anyway soon discredited, by the historical renaissance which the History had itself generated. The newly arrived Bretons had not been long settled in Armorica before realizing that they had not, after all, escaped battering from the beef-eating Germans, though the battering came this time from the Franks. Charlemagne’s royal annalist therefore told their origin-story with the opposite bias from Bede’s. But his conﬁdence was clearly based on the knowledge that no one would contradict him: When the island of Britain was invaded by the Angles and Saxons, a large part of its inhabitants crossed the sea to occupy the regions of Vannes and Corseult [near Saint-Malo] in the utmost extremity of Gaul.⁴⁹

No ut fertur there. Everyone knew. A more measured indicator of Bede’s view of the Britons is to be detected in his use of the term barbarus. Romans had used the term to denote non-Romans. As the Germanic invaders of the Empire became Christian and learned to write, ⁴⁶ HE, I.15, 31a. ⁴⁷ The expression of P. Leigh Fermor, Between the Woods and the Water (New York, 1986), 94. ⁴⁸ Not laid to rest by Bede’s explanation at HE, I.12, 25d; cf. N. Wright, ‘Gildas’ Geographical Perspective: Some Problems’, in M. Lapidge and D. Dumville (eds.), Gildas: New Approaches (Woodbridge, 1984), 85–105, esp. 87–92. ⁴⁹ Annales regni Francorum [Annales q. d. Einhardi, ad annum 786 ], ed. G. H. Pertz, rev. F. Kurze, MGH, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum, 8vo (Hannover, 1895), 73.

Bede and the Unchosen Race

65

they took over the word and applied it to non-Christians.⁵⁰ It normally implied (for them as for the Romans) bellicosity, cruelty, and ignorance.⁵¹ Bede’s usage shadows these changes.⁵² In a classical context he will use it to mean ‘non-Roman’. It still does so in 597, when, en route for Britain, Augustine fears the barbaram, feram, incredulamque gentem. But, as Christianity takes hold, barbarus comes to denote only the English still unconverted (like Penda), or pagan outsiders (like Oswald’s northern enemies). Apart from one occasion when the word just means ‘foreign’ (of a language: the primitive Greek meaning), barbarus in Bede implies cruelty, arrogance, or (twice) unteachable ignorance. These were qualities opposite to those fostered by the Christian English kings, who by 700 were ‘a terror to all barbarian nations’. Whether the terrorized barbarian nations included hostile Britons Bede does not say. He only once uses the term barbarus about a Briton, and then justiﬁes its use by naming the atrocities that have made the man ‘because barbarian, more savage than a pagan’, in that Cadwallon (the man in question) slaughters women and children. To use the term of Christians—even if they were perﬁdi —went too far. Bede can even, once, have Britons call Saxons barbari (as the Bangor monks do, speaking of Æthelfrith). Britons, as a whole, were therefore not quite barbarians. That they were perilously near the frontier, however, is shown by another feature in Bede’s treatment of them: the contrast he presents between the British and the Irish. A century earlier Laurence of Canterbury, who knew both parties, had said that ‘the Irish do not differ in any way from the British in their way of life’.⁵³ While Bede records this assertion, his narrative denies it, driving a wedge between Britons and Irish.⁵⁴ The Irish are the History’s Prodigal Sons, most of them coming right in the end as a people ‘harmless and always friendly to the English’, so that when a latter-day Æthelfrith attacks the Irish he does get divinely punished for doing so.⁵⁵ The Britons, by contrast, had earned their subjection, by their contumacy and then by their vices. Accusations of general corruption seldom lack all evidence, and Bede’s did not. But it is worth considering where he found it: in Gildas’s De excidio.⁵⁶ Gildas’s book had been since Theodore’s time required reading in Canterbury, source of much of Bede’s book-learning,⁵⁷ so Bede knew it well. But he must also have known its genre. Gildas was the Britons’ Jeremiah, rousing his compatriots to the rape of their homeland and to its cause, their sins, enumerated. Bede was an exegete. We ⁵⁰ E. Ewig, ‘Volkstum und Volksbewusstsein im Frankenreich des siebten Jhs’, in Settimane di studio del centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 5 (Spoleto, 1958), 587–648, at 615–16. ⁵¹ Ibid., 617–24. ⁵² Jones, Concordance, 53–4, identiﬁes 26 appearances of the word barbarus as noun or adjective (including 2 of barbaricus). Ten are from quotations (though in one—HE, V.19, 326b)—the word is Bede’s insertion) and 2 are from rubrics probably not by Bede. References in the following three paragraphs can be found through this source. ⁵³ HE, II.4, 88a. ⁵⁴ Stancliffe, ‘British Church’, 113, 108, and 140–1, n. 4. ⁵⁵ HE, IV.23, 266c. ⁵⁶ HE, I.14, 29d–30a; I.12, 28b. ⁵⁷ Brooks, ‘Canterbury’, 241; Howlett, ‘Insular Latin Poetry’, 84.

66

Alexander Murray

often hear of his critical stance to his sources. But he made an exception here. He allowed nothing for Gildas’s literary purpose.⁵⁸ Again, Bede knew what he was doing, and that the same Church could be described in two quite different ways, good and bad, for outsiders and insiders, respectively; because he had done it himself. Bede’s History ends with a sanguine picture of the Church of his day, in contrast to the picture he gives in his Commentary on Kings, where the same Church is slave to Babylon,⁵⁹ or in his Letter to Bishop Egbert.⁶⁰ Bede must have known that before his English public he was washing their victims’ dirtiest linen. In any indictment of Bede, that public must be brought into the reckoning. Bede’s History was dedicated to an English king, Ceolwulf, and envisaged a public of a similar cast of mind. From Gregory the Great, as well as from instinct, Bede knew that an intrinsically valid message will never get home if it ﬂouts all its listeners’values at once.⁶¹ His History has a reader-friendly, popularizing character and Latin, distinguishing it from his other works; and it did carry an instrinsically valid message. So perhaps even an advocatus diaboli must draw back from reading Bede’s anti-British animus as all his fault, and recognize even that it was necessary to the reception and survival of his History. The price was paid in posthumous reputation by the Britons, to add to their other losses. No one knows for sure what became of the Britons who did not ﬂee west or to Brittany. There must have been over a million in Britain when the Saxons arrived. Geneticists know of a chromosome passed exclusively through males, and preliminary soundings in the modern English midlands, set against some in Wales and over the North Sea, would be consistent with the AngloSaxons having massacred all male Britons and married or raped their women,⁶² conﬁrming certain remarks in both Gildas and Bede (who called Cadwallon a barbarian, we recall, because he killed women and children: men were different). But we know that cannot have been true everywhere; and a less drastic theory, complementary to it and demonstrable in some regions, is that the children of the subject Britons quickly saw the wisdom of learning their masters’ language and ways, and became effectively English.⁶³ (We know this happened with the Franks and their Gallic subjects.)⁶⁴ ⁵⁸ An analogous omission is my only quarrel with T. Charles-Edwards, ‘Bede, the Irish and the Britons’, Celtica, 15 (1983), 42–52. ⁵⁹ In regum librum xxx quaestiones, ed. D. Hurst, Corpus Christianorum Scriptorum Latinorum, 119, pt ii, 2 ( Turnhout, 1962), 293–332, at 300–21 (on IV Reg. 24: 14). ⁶⁰ Contrast and context: J. Blair, The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society (Oxford, 2005), 101–2. ⁶¹ HE, I.30, 65d; III.5, 137bc. Cf. J. Campbell, Essays in Anglo-Saxon History (London and Ronceverte, 1986), 26, 37. ⁶² D. A. Weiss, M. E. Weale, et al., ‘Y-chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration’, Molecular Biology and Evolution, 19/7 (2002), 1008–21. I thank Dr Mark G. Thomas for this reference. ⁶³ Ward-Perkins, ‘Why did the Anglo-Saxons?’, 513–33. ⁶⁴ R. Wenskus, Stammesbildung und Verfassung: Das Werden der frühmittelalterlichen gentes (Cologne, 1961), 512–41.

Bede and the Unchosen Race

67

However we balance those answers, Bede’s History remains a victors’ document, justifying the Britons’ elimination.⁶⁵ It used appropriate literary devices. These included one stolen from the victim. British epic, mourning dead heroes (and translated by an English monastery), has been plausibly suggested as Bede’s source for the battle of Chester.⁶⁶ Bede himself treated the story in epic fashion, reading the British rout as nemesis for the Britons’ hubris in defying due authority. Epic was handy for this purpose. We do not have to leave medieval Britain to ﬁnd a parallel in the Bayeux Tapestry. After 1066 the Normans had to justify a conquest. To do so they employed, among other devices, a pictorial narrative of the epic tragedy of a man who, through hubris, deﬁed the authority to which an oath had already bound him, his benefactor William.⁶⁷ Bede’s History invites a similar interpretation. It was the Bayeux Tapestry of the Anglo-Saxon conquest. ⁶⁵ Conceivably in the future. I owe to Dr Clare Stancliffe, in a brilliant lecture on almost the same subject which I heard after submitting this chapter (and which is to be published as the Whithorn Lecture for 2005), the hypothesis that Bede still feared the Britons. ⁶⁶ Chadwick, ‘Battle of Chester’, 167–85. ⁶⁷ C. R. Dodwell, ‘The Bayeux Tapestry and French Secular Epic’, The Burlington Magazine, 108 (1966), 549–60.

6 The Early Middle Ages and Spanish Identity Wendy Davies

The middle ages have for a long time been seen as a critical period in the formation of modern Spain. The creation, expansion, and consolidation of the Christian kingdoms of the north and of the county of Castile, movements characteristic of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries, are held to lay the basis for the uniﬁcation of Spain in the sixteenth century, the Spanish empire, and the transmission of Spanish culture overseas. The images of territorial expansion, Christian self-conﬁdence, and the settlement of a desert have seemed to be essential to understanding what makes Spain Spain. Indeed, the distinctiveness of Spain was a recurrent preoccupation of Spanish historians in the twentieth century: what made Spain different from the rest of Europe?¹ Different it obviously seemed to be, given the strength of continuing cultural contacts with Spanish America and given its civil war, its long period of dictatorship, its particular brand of Catholicism, and its very strong regional identities. For most historians, what made Spain different was the distinctiveness of its medieval past, a past of overt cultural and political conﬂict between Christians and Muslims, and a past in which the almost total Muslim conquest of 711 was gradually, across many centuries, overturned by the ‘centuries-long frontier struggle between Christians and Muslims’: ‘Reconquest [is the] key to the history of Spain’.² Indeed, the view is not conﬁned to historians and still colours the way many modern Spaniards think of themselves, even if it is to maintain that Spain is no longer different.³

¹ A. Castro, The Structure of Spanish History, trans. E. L. King (Princeton, 1954), 3; C. Sánchez Albornoz, Espa˜na; un enigma histórico, 2 vols. (Buenos Aires, 1956); J. M. Jover, ‘Panorama of Current Spanish Historiography’, Journal of World History, 6 (1960–1), 1023–38; T. F. Glick, Islamic and Christian Spain in the Early Middle Ages (Princeton, 1979), 10–12; P. Linehan, History and the Historians of Medieval Spain (Oxford, 1993), 4, 192; cf. below, 72–3. ² C. Sánchez Albornoz, ‘The Frontier and Castilian Liberties’, in A. R. Lewis and T. F. McGann (eds.), The New World Looks at its History (Texas, 1963), 27–46, at 29; id., Espa˜na; un enigma, ii. 9. Cf. A. Ubieto Arteta, Atlas Histórico. Como se formó Espa˜na, 2nd edn.. (Valencia, 1970), passim. ³ J. Hooper, The New Spaniards (London, 1995), 374, 445–6; C. Closa and P. M. Heywood, Spain and the European Union (Basingstoke, 2004), 31.

The Early Middle Ages and Spanish Identity

69 N

R. TORÍO R. PORMA GALICIA

CANTABRIAN MTS COUNTY LEÓN OF CASTILE

BASQUE COUNTRY PYRENEES CATALONIA

R.

O ER

R.

DU

EB

RO

TOLEDO

AL - ANDALUS

CORDOBA

0

150 km Land over 914 m Land over 365 m

Map 1. Early Medieval Spain

In what follows I shall ﬁrstly consider the major issues that have absorbed medieval historians in the twentieth century; I shall then take a look at twentiethcentury political developments, at the use of the medieval past by twentiethcentury politicians, and at the interaction of both with history writing; and I shall ﬁnally consider the fate of historians’ preoccupations of the twentieth century and the issues that remain to be resolved. The interplay between contemporary politics and history writing is subtle—and unusually important.

70

Wendy Davies W R I T I N G M E D I EVA L H I S TO RY

Medieval historians had different approaches to the past and twentieth-century history writing is marked by sustained debates about it.⁴ The most prominent debate, and the most inﬂuential, is that between Américo Castro and Claudio Sánchez Albornoz, largely conducted in mid-century. Castro argued that the peculiar identity of Spain derived from the integration of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish cultures, which had interacted with each other to produce a new culture during the course of the reconquest across the ninth to thirteenth centuries.⁵ This interaction was creative, he maintained, and determined the future quality of the Spanish, for the earlier Roman and Visigothic traditions had been wiped out by the very fact of the Arab incursion and settlement. Sánchez Albornoz, by contrast, argued that the identity of Spain was marked by different characteristics from those of other western European states and derived from a Spanishness that had developed in antiquity. The palaeolithic had been ‘more uniﬁed ethnically and culturally than people supposed’ and the Roman period saw further manifestations of the temperament of homo hispanus; despite the apparently dramatic political changes, there were cultural continuities from that time and a quintessentially Hispanic culture survived the Arab onslaught.⁶ Both historians agreed, however, that the medieval development of Spain had been different from that of western Europe as a whole, for Spain did not share Europe’s feudal characteristics. For Sánchez Albornoz pre-feudal development was beginning much as it did elsewhere in Europe but was cut off by the invasion of 711 and its consequences; for Castro the ideology of feudalism was completely inappropriate and Spain showed no signs of the class conﬂict that he held accompanied feudalism elsewhere.⁷ Here, then, was another critical difference in Spanish development—it had no feudalism. One sub-theme of the debate, although it was much more strongly associated with Sánchez Albornoz than with Castro, was that of depopulation and repopulation. In response to the initial Muslim incursion, King Alfonso I of Asturias (739–57) adopted a policy of strategic depopulation in Galicia and in the large expanse of the Duero basin, he argued. Muslim ⁴ What follows focuses on the historiography of northern Spain; the Arab historiography raises equally important, but different, issues, which merit separate treatment. ⁵ A. Castro, Espa˜na en su historia. Cristianos, moros y judíos (Buenos Aires, 1948); id., The Spaniards: An Introduction to their History, trans. W. F. King and S. Margaretten (Berkeley, 1971). ⁶ Sánchez Albornoz, Espa˜na; un enigma, ii. 349 (Spanish pride surviving in the littleRomanized Asturias and Basque country, ibid., i. 617); id., ‘The Frontier and Castilian Liberties’, 30. ⁷ Sánchez Albornoz, Espa˜na; un enigma, i. 680 (‘Ni feudalismo ni burguesía’, ibid., i. 678, 679); Castro, Structure of Spanish History, 607–15; J. Beverley, ‘Class or Caste: A Critique of the Castro Thesis’, in R. E. Surtz, J. Ferrán, and D. P. Testa (eds.), Américo Castro: The Impact of his Thought (Madison, 1988), 141–9, at 143. Cf. P. Linehan, ‘History in a Changing World: The Case of Medieval Spain’, in id., Past and Present in Medieval Spain (Aldershot, 1992), ch. 1, 1–22 (delivered 1988).

The Early Middle Ages and Spanish Identity

71

conquest provoked further Christian migration, particularly from the Duero valley (see Map 1), the Christian population of Hispania ﬂeeing north to the inhospitable Cantabrian mountains and north-west to the furthest corner of Galicia, leaving vast expanses of unoccupied and depopulated land. As Christian kings slowly won back territory in the central middle ages, the Hispanic population gradually returned from the north to the deserted lands, reinforced by Mozarabic settlers from southern Spain, and together they restored settlement and agriculture.⁸ This was colonization of the frontiers in a truly American sense and Sánchez Albornoz exploited the parallels. Like the American pioneers, the colonizers brought a spirit of freedom to central Spain and their settlements became free communities of small-scale proprietors.⁹ This free peasant spirit did much to determine the distinctive qualities of Spanish society in the central middle ages and even beyond: ‘an island of freemen in a Europe in the process of feudalization’; ‘a major factor in forging the Spaniard and his differentiation from the man beyond the Pyrenees’.¹⁰ Belief in depopulation and repopulation was highly inﬂuential, at scholarly and popular levels, until very recently; the approach has affected most aspects of the interpretation of social and political change in the early middle ages. Even in the late twentieth century distinguished scholars wrote about depopulation beginning already in the later seventh century (that is before the Muslim incursion), about desertion caused by the Arabs, about families who colonized ‘deserted lands’ in the ninth and tenth centuries, and about repopulation.¹¹ School textbooks of the twenty-ﬁrst century detail the abandonment of lands occasioned by the Muslim ⁸ Mozarabic: Arabized Hispanics, often Christian. ⁹ C. Sánchez Albornoz, Despoblación y repoblación del valle del Duero (Buenos Aires, 1966); id., ‘Repoblación del Reino Asturleonés’, in his Viejos y nuevos estudios sobre las instituciones medievales espa˜nolas, 3 vols. (Madrid, 1976–80), ii. 581–790 (ﬁrst published 1971, but see his comments already in id., ‘Las behetrías: la encomendación en Asturias, León y Castilla’, Anuario de Historia del Derecho Espa˜nol, 1 (1924), 158–336, at 198–203); id., ‘Pequen˜ os propietarios libres en el reino Asturleonés. Su realidad histórica’, Settimane di studio del centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 13 (1966), 183–222; Ubieto Arteta, Atlas Histórico, 38–49, 59, for visual representations of maximum depopulation in the eighth century and gradual repopulation thereafter. J. Vicens Vives, Approaches to the History of Spain, trans. J. C. Ullman, 2nd edn. (Berkeley, Calif. 1970), 36–9 (translation of update of his Aproximación a la historia de Espa˜na (Barcelona, 1952)). ¹⁰ Sánchez Albornoz, ‘Repoblación’, 790. ¹¹ J. A. García de Cortázar, La sociedad rural en la Espa˜na medieval (Madrid, 1988), 19–27; R. Pastor, ‘Sur la genèse du féodalisme en Castille et dans le León, Xe –XIIe siècles. Point de départ pour une histoire comparative’, in H. Atsma and A. Burguière (eds.), Marc Bloch aujourd’hui. Histoire comparée et sciences sociales (Paris, 1990), 259–70, at 263, 266; J. A. García de Cortázar and E. Pen˜ a Bocos, ‘Poder condal y ‘‘mutación feudal’’? en la Castilla del a˜no mil’, in M. I. Loring García (ed.), Historia social, pensiamento historiográﬁco y edad media (Madrid, 1997), 273–98, at 297; R. Collins, ‘The Spanish Kingdoms’, in T. Reuter (ed.), The New Cambridge Medieval History, III, c.900–c.1024 (Cambridge, 1999), 670–91, at 673, 691; G. Martínez Díez, El condado de Castilla (711–1038). La historia frente a la leyenda, 2 vols. (Valladolid, 2005). ?

72

Wendy Davies

conquest and the subsequent repopulation of extensive territory in the ninth and tenth centuries, especially in the Duero basin.¹² History writing of the past one or two generations has been immensely inﬂuenced by the reaction to Sánchez Albornoz, often self-consciously so.¹³ To begin with, feudalism was admitted and instated.¹⁴ In the mid-1960s Barbero and Vigil began to publish their work on the formation of Spanish feudalism, arguing that although in part it evolved directly from late and post-Roman society, that is from the ﬁfth and sixth centuries, those parts of northern Spain which were little touched by Romanization sustained a tribal society whose transformation from collective property-owning kin groups to villages of individual owners constituted a different and later route to feudal society.¹⁵ There followed more than a generation of lively discussion of the precise character of Spanish feudalism and the extent to which it diverged from a north Frankish model. Paying relatively little attention to Barbero and Vigil’s ‘Visigothic feudalism’, most historians identiﬁed the central middle ages as the key period of feudalization, charting the development at different rates within a tenth- to twelfth-century bracket. Bonnassie’s distinctive contribution, for example, was the speed of the change; he argued for a sharp break with the past and the very rapid development of feudal relationships in Catalonia in the mid-eleventh century (but for the slower evolution of essentially the same processes in Galicia, León, and Castile).¹⁶ When Reyna Pastor spoke at the Marc Bloch conference of 1986, she adopted essentially the same chronology for León and Castile but pointed to some differences in the process: in particular, the development of the seigneurie banale was a direct consequence of desertion and subsequent colonization, and not of the development of anything like the classical Frankish manor; and vassalage developed after the feudal relations of production rather than before. Earlier she had stressed that León and Castile ¹² M. Burgos Alonso, J. Calvo Poyato, M. Jaramillo Cervilla, and S. Martín Guerrero, Historia. 1er ciclo, Serie Aula Abierta (Madrid, 2001), 128–9. Cf. G. Martín Mu˜noz, ‘Entre cliché et préjugé. L’Islam, le monde arabe et Al-Andalus dans le système éducatif espagnol’, in J. A. Alcantud and F. Zabbal (eds.), Histoire de l’Andalousie. Mémoire et enjeux (Paris, 2003), 133–44. ¹³ Cf. R. Pastor, Resistencias y luchas campesinas en la época del crecimiento y consolidación de la formación feudal. Castilla y León, siglos X–XIII, 2nd edn. (Madrid, 1990), 9, 45 (ﬁrst published 1980); R. Pastor, C. Estepa Díez, J. A. García de Cortázar, J. L. Abellán, and J. L. Martín, Sánchez Albornoz A Debate (Valladolid, 1993). ¹⁴ Note the comments of Peter Linehan, History and the Historians, 191–9. ¹⁵ M. Vigil and A. Barbero, ‘Sobre los orígenes sociales de la Reconquista. Cántabros y vascones desde ﬁnes del Imperio romano hasta la invasión musulmana’, Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia, 156 (1965), 272–339; their main work is A. Barbero and M. Vigil, La formación del feudalismo en la Península Ibérica (Barcelona, 1978), esp. 155–200, 354–404, and particularly 370–1, 401, in this respect. ¹⁶ P. Bonnassie, La Catalogne du milieu du Xe à la ﬁn du XIe siècle: croissance et mutations d’une société, 2 vols. (Toulouse, 1976), esp. ii. 539–680; id., ‘From the Rhône to Galicia: Origins and Modalities of the Feudal Order’, in P. Bonnassie, From Slavery to Feudalism in South-western Europe, trans. J. Birrell (Cambridge, 1991), 104–31 (ﬁrst published 1980); P. Bonnassie, La Catalogne au tournant de l’an mil. Croissance et mutations d’une société (Paris, 1990), esp. 263–358.

The Early Middle Ages and Spanish Identity

73

shared in western European trends, notwithstanding differences like the absence of religious overtones to peasant conﬂicts.¹⁷ Difference was also a key aspect of Carlos Estepa’s inﬂuential paper of 1989, with its much quoted identiﬁcation of the three key elements of feudal property—propiedad dominical, dominio se˜norial, se˜norio jurisdiccional (lordly property rights (cf. domanial lordship), seigneurial lordship, and the more established territorial seigneurie); he stressed both the different forms of feudalism to be found in Castile and the several different factors leading to its formation. The complexity of the changes is a point he has emphasized recently, while insisting that Barbero and Vigil’s work remains the starting-point, a view that is widely shared.¹⁸ Salrach has also recently suggested the greater power of the king in the feudalism of León and Castile.¹⁹ Discussion continues today—witness the major conference on lords, serfs, and vassals in 2001²⁰—although nowadays it focuses as much on the nature of lordly power as on feudalism as such. The presence of feudalism, however, is now embedded in Spanish historiography, without the ‘measure of excitability’ which Rees Davies noted usually attended such talk.²¹ Alongside the acceptance of feudalism, other themes emerged in recent decades. In contrast to the concern of Castro and Sánchez Albornoz with a single and unique pan-Hispanic identity, regional history became prominent in all its variety; close attention to local development brought systematic study of, for example, monastic seigneuries —like the hugely inﬂuential works of García de Cortázar on San Millán de la Cogolla and of Mínguez on Sahagún; in the seventies and eighties, as Reyna Pastor put it, there developed a ‘sea of speciﬁcities’.²² Other issues emerged in the context of the feudal discussion, taking on a life of their own: the hierarchization of ﬂat social structures; the collapse of community collectivities in the face of growing seigneurial power; ¹⁷ Pastor, ‘Sur la genèse du féodalisme’, 266–8; ead., Resistencias, e.g. 14, 249–50. ¹⁸ C. Estepa Díez, ‘Formación y consolidación del feudalismo en Castilla y León’, in En torno al feudalismo hispánico. I congreso de estudios medievales (León, 1989), 157–256, at 161–2, 196, 255; id., ‘Comunidades de aldea y formación del feudalismo. Revisión, estado de la cuestión y perspectivas’, in M. J. Hidalgo, D. Pérez, and M. J. R. Gervás (eds.), ‘Romanización’ y ‘Reconquista’ en la península ibérica: nuevas perspectivas (Salamanca, 1998), 271–82, esp. 282. The view may be widely shared, but there remain some opponents; see C. J. Wickham, ‘Le forme del feudalesimo’, Settimane di studio del centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 47 (2000), 15–46, at 24–5. ¹⁹ J. M. Salrach, ‘Les féodalités méridionales: des Alpes à la Galice’, in E. Bournazel and J.-P. Poly (eds.), Les féodalités (Paris, 1998), 313–88, at 373. ²⁰ Se˜nores, siervos, vasallos en la alta edad media. XXVIII Semana de estudios medievales, Estella, 16 a 20 de julio de 2001 (Pamplona, 2002). ²¹ Davies, Empire, 103. For Spanish feudalism, see further below, 78–9. For a useful survey of approaches, see J. A. García de Cortázar, ‘La formación de la sociedad feudal en el cuadrante noroccidental de la península ibérica en los siglos viii a xii’, Initium, 4 (1999), 57–121, esp. at 69–75. ²² J. A. García de Cortázar y Ruiz de Aguirre, El dominio del monasterio de San Millán de la Cogolla (siglos X a XIII). Introducción a la historia rural de Castilla altomedieval (Salamanca, 1969); J. M. Mínguez Fernández, El dominio del monasterio de Sahagún en el siglo X (Salamanca, 1980); Pastor, ‘Sur la genèse du féodalisme’, 261.

74

Wendy Davies

the strength, or otherwise, of public power.²³ Most recently a new trend has emerged, a trend that questions the fact of depopulation itself and therefore of repopulation and colonization, especially in the Duero valley. Muslim invasion and campaigning may not, after all, have sent the Hispanic population of the meseta ﬂeeing north into the mountains; most stayed where they were, continuing to farm; and their settlements were in some parts connected through networks of supra-local units. One heard it said in Madrid in May 2005 that no-one can possibly believe the old idea of repopulation any more. The continuity of population in—for example—Castile has been developed by Julio Escalona and for parts of León by others such as I˜naki Martín.²⁴ M O D E R N S PA I N A N D T H E PA S T What was made of the past was, as ever, conditioned by contemporary contexts. By western European standards Spain was economically underdeveloped at the start of the twentieth century, and the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were characterized by the presence of exceptionally unstable governments, not helped by crushing naval and military defeats in Cuba (1898) and Morocco (1921)²⁵—this was a country only to be explained by the ‘tensions caused by the imposition of ‘‘advanced’’ liberal institutions on an economically and socially ‘‘backward’’ and conservative society’.²⁶ The days of Spanish empire ²³ See e.g. I. Álvarez Borge, ‘Sobre la formación de la gran propiedad y las relaciones de dependencia en Hampshire (Wessex) y Castilla en la alta edad media’, in id. (co-ord.), Comunidades locales y poderes feudales en la edad media (Logron˜ o, 2001), 21–63, at 43–7; J. Escalona Monge, ‘De ‘‘sen˜ ores y campesinos’’ a ‘‘poderes feudales y comunidades’’. Elementos para deﬁnir la articulación entre territorio y clases sociales en la alta edad media castellana’, in Álvarez Borge (co-ord.), Comunidades locales, 115–55; Estepa Díez, ‘Formación y consolidación del feudalismo’, 164–74; Salrach, ‘Féodalités méridionales’, 320–1. ²⁴ J. Escalona Monge, Sociedad y territorio en la alta edad media castellana. La formación del alfoz de Lara, BAR International Series no. 1079 (Oxford, 2002), and id., ‘Unidades territoriales supralocales: una propuesta sobre los orígenes del se˜norío de behetría’, in C. Estepa Díez and C. Jular Pérez-Alfaro (co-ord.), Los se˜noríos de behetría (Madrid, 2001), 21–46; M. C. Rodríguez González and M. Durany Castrillo, ‘Ocupación y organización del espacio en el Bierzo Bajo entre los siglos V al X’, and J. M. Mínguez, ‘Continuidad y ruptura en los orígenes de la sociedad asturleonesa. De la villa a la comunidad campesina’, both in Studia Historica. Historia Medieval, 16 (1998), 45–87, 89–127; I. Martín Viso, Fragmentos del Leviatán. La articulación política del espacio zamorano en la alta edad media (Zamora, 2002); S. Castellanos and I. Martín Viso, ‘The Local Articulation of Central Power in the North of the Iberian Peninsula (500–1000)’, Early Medieval Europe, 13 (2005), 1–42, esp. 21–41; cf. J. J. Larrea, La Navarre du IV e au XII e siècle (Paris and Brussels, 1998), 165–6, 183–211. For a helpful survey in English see J. Escalona Monge, ‘Mapping Scale Change: Hierarchization and Fission in Castilian Rural Communities during the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries’, in W. Davies, G. Halsall, and A. J. Reynolds (eds.), People and Space in the Middle Ages, 300–1300 (Turnhout, 2007), 143–66, at 145–9. For debates on depopulation see also below, pp. 79–81. ²⁵ Vicens Vives, Approaches, 178; J. Pan-Montojo (ed.), Más se perdió en Cuba. Espa˜na, 1898 y la crisis de ﬁn de siglo (Madrid, 1998), esp. 151–260. ²⁶ R. Carr, Modern Spain 1875–1980 (Oxford, 1980), 1.

The Early Middle Ages and Spanish Identity

75

were clearly over. Against a background of poverty, and of agricultural and industrial revolutions that had barely started in 1900,²⁷ republican, socialist and anarchist parties began to compete for the commitment of workers.²⁸ Organized labour, however, was highly fragmented.²⁹ At the same time, the strong regional identities apparent in northern Spain began to be politicized, as in Catalonia in the 1890s. The upshot of this political instability, and of the violent protests which sometimes accompanied it, was military dictatorship—at ﬁrst the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera in 1923, which signalled the end of parliamentary monarchy for over ﬁfty years, followed (after the interlude of the Second Republic) by civil war and the dictatorship of Franco (1939–75).³⁰ Franco’s regime brought economic transformation, industrialization, consumer goods, and massive migration from country to town, but it was politically very repressive, lacking adult suffrage and freedom of political association.³¹ The system was showing signs of change from the late 1960s, as student radicals began to protest, reformists argued for liberalization, the support of the Church weakened, and the earlier movements of regional autonomy revived.³² Constitutional monarchy and democracy were restored rapidly after Franco’s death: King Juan Carlos immediately appointed ministers and the ﬁrst free legislative election since 1936 established the new Cortes. The constitution was agreed and approved in 1978 and Catalan regional government (the Generalitat) re-established in that year.³³ There have been massive changes in Spanish society and politics in the post-Franco era, given the end of censorship and of language suppression, the arrival of a free press and freedom to worship, the great increase in university enrolment, the development of a welfare state, and the establishment of a constitution that provides for regional government.³⁴ Already opening up to wider European inﬂuence and contact in the 1960s, through tourism and emigration, accommodation to European standards and practices reached a new stage with accession to the European Union in 1986 and another with adoption of the euro in 1999. As John Hooper commented in 1995, no longer conquistadores, large sections of the Spanish public have become hostile to ²⁷ For the background, see N. Sánchez-Albornoz, Espa˜na hace un siglo: una economía dual, 2nd edn.. (Madrid, 1977), 69–80; for detailed analysis J. Vicens Vives (ed.), Historia social y económica de Espa˜na y América, 5 vols., rev. edn. (Barcelona, 1974 (ﬁrst published 1957) ), v. 3–283; R. Carr, Spain 1808–1975, 2nd edn. (Oxford, 1982), esp. 398–411. ²⁸ Vicens Vives (ed.), Historia, v. 315–49. ²⁹ See Carr, Spain 1808–1975, 439–55. ³⁰ Vicens Vives (ed.), Historia, v. 368–83. ³¹ See Carr, Spain 1808–1975, esp. 705–9, 750–2; E. Malefakis, ‘Spain and its Francoist Heritage’, in J. H. Herz (ed.), From Dictatorship to Democracy. Coping with the Legacies of Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism (Westport, Conn., 1982), 215–30, at 217–19. ³² A. López Pina and E. L. Aranguren, La Cultura Política de Espa˜na de Franco (Madrid, 1976), 191–7. ³³ Malefakis, ‘Spain’, 226–7. ³⁴ J. García Morillo, La democracia en Espa˜na (Madrid, 1996), 294–5, 421.

76

Wendy Davies

war;³⁵ church attendance rapidly declined; immigrants brought new cultures to Spain; and seventeen regions achieved autonomous status within the Spanish state. The development of strong regional political identities is of considerable signiﬁcance for the understanding of modern Spain. The movement was already apparent by 1900, when the Catalans were leading the argument for political devolution and the end of ‘Castilian hegemony’.³⁶ The movement for regional autonomy was initially a characteristic of the north (Galicia, the Basque country, Catalonia): three separate languages (Galician, Basque, and Catalan), each with its own range of dialects, symbolized northern identities, in opposition to the Castilian that centralizing governments adopted as Spanish—a dominance in language that was echoed in politics and culture, castellanocentrismo.³⁷ Late in the Franco period, a movement for greater regionalism became evident.³⁸ The constitution of 1978 provided mechanisms for other regions to achieve autonomous status and they quickly seized the opportunity as ‘autonomanía’ spread.³⁹ Hence, nowadays, for many people the region comes before the state.⁴⁰ Debate about the peoples of Spain surfaced during much of the twentieth century: was there one Spanish people or were there several, reﬂecting those strongly demarcated and developing regional identities? The impact of the Franco regime here was marked: the Nationalists were strongly on one side of the peoples debate. When they fought for power in 1936, they stood for pan-Spanish nationalism—the whole country, one state—as against the different potential nationalisms of the regions or the supra-national ideology of communism.⁴¹ Their very insistence on the oneness of Spain in itself stimulated enhanced regional identities. Moreover, the Nationalists used the past in the argument for unity: Spain had a long history, its modern political identity established by the middle ages, particularly in the context of the long war fought by the Christians against the Muslims. For them, the ultimate outcome of all that ﬁghting, and of all the small kingdoms involved, was the Spanish state. Indeed, Castile was the core of the state, and the rise of Castile could be traced back to the tenth century. Nationalist Spain was also Catholic Spain, as some historians had argued even before the Franco era:⁴² it was Christianity that had brought unity to Spain; ³⁵ Hooper, New Spaniards, 105. ³⁶ Vicens Vives, Approaches, 141–50; Carr, Spain 1808–1975, 547–56. ³⁷ Escalona Monge, Sociedad y territorio, 8. ³⁸ Cf. regional attitudes polled in the 1960s and early 1970s, López Pina and Aranguren, Cultura Política, 96–7, 148–54. ³⁹ Malefakis, ‘Spain’, 228. See M. García Ferrando, Regionalismo y autonomias en Espa˜na 1976–1979 (Madrid, 1982). ⁴⁰ Hooper, New Spaniards, 371. ⁴¹ Linehan, ‘History in a Changing World’, 10–11; cf. Jover, ‘Panorama’, 1026. ⁴² Cf. Barbero and Vigil’s caricature: ‘Spanish nationality already existed in the Visigothic kingdom of Toledo; disappearing, but then reviving with Pelayo in Covadonga, it was continued

The Early Middle Ages and Spanish Identity

77

Christianity had, in the end, triumphed.⁴³ And just as Spain had been the bulwark of western Christendom in the early middle ages, the last stand against the Muslim onrush, so the Nationalists—having won against republicans and against the supra-national alliances of the labour movement—could pursue a new reconquest against communism. A veritable crusade.⁴⁴ The image enhanced the political message and, in its turn, was reinforced as an interpretative model. This, then, was the context in which Castro and Sánchez Albornoz set out their divergent views of Spanish identity in the middle ages. Castro reacted against these twentieth-century attempts to ‘de-Islamize and de-Judaize the Spanish past’;⁴⁵ he worked to demonstrate the extensive interaction of Islamic and Jewish populations with the Christian population in Spain, reversing an anti-semitic trend that had been present for centuries. Disturbed by the political regime, he left Spain for the Americas, holding chairs in the United States after a brief spell in Buenos Aires. (Sánchez Albornoz also ﬂed Spain, although his different views oddly reﬂected those of the regime he so disliked.) Thus did two of the most prominent historians of the mid-twentieth century both reﬂect and oppose the dominant political ideology. Historical attitudes began to change further in the 1960s, even before Franco’s death in November 1975, as scepticism about the determining effects of Christianity began to grow and the power of the nationalist, Catholic ideology began to weaken. Historians dealt more with social and economic dimensions and less with the religious, in which context came the arrival of feudalism and the concern with solid local studies, discussed above. Catalan history-writing, in particular, tended to stress the difference between Catalan development and that of the rest of Spain. As the pace of political change increased in the late twentieth century, the contexts in which the historian operated not only widened; they multiplied. When Spain joined the European Community, it was no longer ‘different’; it became part of the European family, although a part that retained strong cultural links with Spanish America.⁴⁶ Parliamentary monarchy within the European Union provides the context for Spain to share in European initiatives and European concerns. In the world of the twenty-ﬁrst century, political similarities across Europe are underlined (and shared global threats—as the Madrid bombing of March 2004 (now itself reﬂected in the London bombing of July 2005) reﬂects New York on 9/11 [2001] rather than more local problems). Cultural fusion has now become a matter of acute political sensitivity: Christian/Muslim by the Astur-Leonese kings, who transmitted the ancient Gothic national heritage to the Castilian monarchs, who completed the national Reconquest with the fall of Granada’, Formación del feudalismo, 234. ⁴³ Linehan, History and the Historians, 79–80, 192, 206. ⁴⁴ id., ‘History in a Changing World’, 12–14. ⁴⁵ Castro, Spaniards, p. ix. ⁴⁶ Closa and Heywood, Spain and the European Union, 31, 34, 245 (citing El País 11/6/95).

78

Wendy Davies

integration within civil society is the message of liberal political leaders, although neo-conservative and extremist factions argue for polarization as they do in many parts of the world. Indeed, a conservative stream in Spanish politics still rehearses the Christian versus Muslim paradigm—witness ex-Prime Minister Aznar’s speech at Georgetown University, when he commented that the Spanish had had problems with Al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorism since the early eighth century: at that time, he said, ‘a Spain recently invaded by the Moors refused to become just another piece in the Islamic world and began a long battle to recover its identity. This Reconquista process was very long’ (21/9/2004). Now, therefore, in politics there is a complex interplay between the autonomous regions, the state, the wider political association that already encompasses twenty-ﬁve European countries, and global imperatives.⁴⁷ The current generation of medieval historians reﬂects this complexity—well informed about historical development beyond Spain, open to new ideas, thinking comparatively, embracing cultural diversity; while it tends to reﬂect the liberal position on integration, it is also strongly characterized by the strength of the reaction to old orthodoxies, particularly to those of the early and mid-twentieth century.

T H E C O N T I N U I N G M E D I EVA L I S S U E S What, then, has happened to the issues that occupied medieval historians of the twentieth century? Does Spain continue to be seen as different? No; it now seems to be accommodated within the wider European world, although there are clearly differences of development and emphasis. Is there still a debate over continuities in Spanish culture? Thomas Glick, writing in 1979, thought that the real issues underlying that debate were to do with cultural substrates and their continuity, as opposed to cultural fusion: ‘to what extent do enough cultural elements persist over very long periods of time?’⁴⁸ His answers were subtle but the question is not really answerable from early medieval material. In an intellectual environment which had expectations of a politically correct cultural integration, the historians of the 1990s moved away from the question of cultural fusion or continuity altogether, although the reaction against depopulation struck a blow for continuities of a kind. The overt preoccupations were different. Was Spain feudal? Although Spanish historians had now adopted ‘feudalism’ as a Spanish characteristic, European feudalism had moved on (and some would say it had disappeared). Gone were the institutional invariables of ﬁef and vassal; in had come the complex of ﬂuctuating feudo-vassallic relationships. In, too, were a couple of decades of debate on feudal mutation—a shift in the entire socio-economic system of, for some, astonishing ⁴⁷ Cf. García Morillo, La democracia, 178–91.

⁴⁸ Glick, Islamic and Christian Spain, 8.

The Early Middle Ages and Spanish Identity

79

rapidity; for others a change so slow it was barely noticeable.⁴⁹ Spanish historians quickly accommodated the change, characterizing the feudality of much of northern Spain as a social system rather than a complex of institutions and noting seigneurial pressure on peasants there as elsewhere.⁵⁰ In the past ﬁve years or so seigneurialization (that is, embedding, and often territorializing, the political power of private lords) has largely been accepted as the dominant process of the tenth to twelfth centuries in northern Spain, and there is something approaching consensus on the fact of it.⁵¹ Where there are remaining issues, they are on the speed and timing of the development rather than on the fact—did it start in the tenth century? Was the real change in the eleventh? Other issues under current discussion are to do with ﬁscality, with public power (presence, absence, growth, and the relationship with comital power in Castile), and with seigneurial relationships with peasant communities.⁵² These are largely new issues. What of the legacy of depopulation and repopulation? Depopulation was, in fact, central to the interpretative models that were dominant for most of the twentieth century. As we have seen, however, this is no longer the case: the free spirit of the colonizers can no longer be called on to explain the ‘delay’ in the development of aristocratic power, the ‘late’ onset of feudality, the quirks of the Spanish experience (like feudo-vassallic institutions following feudality).⁵³ Without it we need different explanatory models. Despite the strength of the idea of depopulation, doubts had been expressed as long ago as the early twentieth century and qualiﬁcations to the stark model became very evident in the later twentieth century.⁵⁴ Even Ubieto Arteta’s 1958 maps have areas ‘without organized population’, rather than areas with no population.⁵⁵ And Menéndez Pidal was at the same time making the point ⁴⁹ For changing approaches see esp. Structures féodales et féodalisme dans l’Occident méditerranéen (X e –XIII e siècles). Bilan et perspectives de recherches (Rome, 1980); J.-P. Poly and E. Bournazel, La mutation féodale: x e –xiie siècles (Paris, 1980); E. Bournazel and J.-P. Poly (eds.), Les féodalités (Paris, 1998). For the sceptical approach, S. Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals. The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (Oxford, 1994). ⁵⁰ Salrach, ‘Féodalités méridionales’, 369; A. Isla Frez, La alta edad media. Siglos VIII–XI (Madrid, 2002), 291–2. ⁵¹ See, e.g., Larrea, La Navarre, 295–6, 406; Escalona, ‘Unidades territoriales supralocales’, 26; I. Álvarez Borge, ‘Estructuras de poder en Castilla en la alta edad media: se˜nores, siervos, vasallos’, in Se˜nores, siervos, vasallos, 269–308, at 308. ⁵² Fiscality: Larrea, La Navarre, 251–3; Isla Frez, La alta edad media, 284; C. Estepa Díez and C. Jular Pérez-Alfaro, ‘Prólogo’, in iid. (co-ord.), Los se˜noríos de behetría, 9–18, at 15. Public power: Salrach, ‘Féodalités méridionales’, 320, 362–3; García de Cortázar and Pe˜na Bocos, ‘Poder condal y ‘‘mutación feudal’’?’; Álvarez Borge, ‘Estructuras de poder en Castilla’, 300–4. Peasant communities: ibid., 281–3. ⁵³ Above, p. 72–3. ⁵⁴ R. Menéndez Pidal, ‘Repoblación y tradición en la cuenca del Duero’, in Enciclopedia Lingüística Hispánica, ed. M. Alvar, A. Badía, R. de Balbín, and L. F. Lindley Cintra, 2 vols. (Madrid, 1960–7), i. xxix–lvii; cf. Barbero y Vigil, Formación del feudalismo, 226–7. Even Sánchez Albornoz allowed for continuing isolated settlements south of the Duero, ‘The Frontier and Castilian Liberties’, 37. ⁵⁵ Ubieto Arteta, Alas Histórico, 40; cf. Pastor, ‘Sur la genèse du féodalisme’, 264. ?

80

Wendy Davies

that the word populare in early medieval texts could refer to the imposition of new political and administrative structures rather than to new settlements.⁵⁶ Some (more modest) decline in population now tends to be invoked in its place, as is new colonization arising out of sheer peasant dynamism in a context of demographic growth;⁵⁷ ‘depopulation’ is understood as loss of structure rather than whole-scale desertion;⁵⁸ and the current debate tends to focus on the relative signiﬁcance in colonization of indigenous as against immigrant population. But the textual references to deserts and to journeys to populate new lands are still present in tenth-century and later texts—like the peasants of Braga who claimed that their ancestors had come from Oviedo.⁵⁹ Following recent analyses, some of the texts can be reasonably interpreted as political claims: repopulation is a means of legitimizing the claims of ninthcentury and later kings.⁶⁰ This works particularly well for the chronicles and for royal and aristocratic charters. But the language of repopulation runs through all levels of charter, from royal to very minor peasant; it is embedded in tenth-century perspectives. It cannot all be explained in terms of political claims. We could draw some lessons from Rees Davies on colonization. In the context of Britain and Ireland of the central middle ages, he demonstrated how ‘colonizing’ may, at one level, have been about kings staking claims to new lands, but often in practice it was about aristocrats establishing their physical presence. He drew attention to the complexities of frontier life and the multiplicity of frontier lands—‘their boundaries changing over time and cutting across the national and state divisions within which we have imprisoned so much of our historiography’.⁶¹ Chris Wickham’s work on the cultivation of ‘deserts’ and ‘clearance’ of forests is also relevant. He demonstrated that such textual references have more to do with the alienation of royal rights than with any previous economic marginality.⁶² In effect ‘clearance’ often meant the establishment of new kinds of proprietary right, new powers over inhabitants, ⁵⁶ Menéndez Pidal, ‘Repoblación y tradición’, i. xxx; cf. García de Cortázar, Sociedad rural en la Espa˜na medieval, 21–2; Castellanos and Martín Viso, ‘Local Articulation’, 23. ⁵⁷ Isla Frez, La alta edad media, 293–4; Larrea, La Navarre, 196, 589–91; Martín Viso, Fragmentos del Leviatán, esp. 43–59; peasant colonization with comital control, Bonnassie, Catalogne (1990), 39–57. ⁵⁸ J. J. García González in the ‘Mesa Redonda’, in Estepa Díez and Jular Pérez-Alfaro (co-ord.), Los se˜noríos de behetría, 261–309, at 263–4. ⁵⁹ See Sánchez Albornoz, ‘Repoblación’, esp. 591–620, for a review of occurrences; id., Despoblación y repoblación, 215–343, depends heavily on evidence of the existence of small proprietors for its repopulation argument; Pastor, Resistencias, 33. ⁶⁰ Barbero y Vigil, Formación del feudalismo, 216–28, 232–49; Linehan, History and the Historians, 88–127; J. Escalona, ‘Family Memories. Inventing Alfonso I of Asturias’, in I. Alfonso, H. Kennedy, and J. Escalona (eds.), Building Legitimacy. Political Discourses and Forms of Legitimation in Medieval Societies (Leiden, 2004), 223–62, esp. 257 for depopulation/repopulation as a ‘legitimating device’. ⁶¹ Davies, Empire, 92. ⁶² C. J. Wickham, ‘European Forests in the Early Middle Ages: Landscape and Land Clearance’, Settimane di studio del centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 37 (1989), 479–548.

The Early Middle Ages and Spanish Identity

81

and new expectations of regular and increasing returns to owners.⁶³ There is much in this model that can help to explain the repeated references to desertion and repopulation in Spanish texts: while, of course, there might be some genuine clearance, just as there must have been some genuine migration, the presura (cf. ‘assart’ in English) did not have to be a freshly cleared plot because it might be a plot with freshly determined liabilities. For the future, some more ﬁeld survey and settlement archaeology would help: we need to know more about the chronology of rural settlement, the changing size of rural settlements over time, and the physical frequency of new settlements. ⁶⁴ Cultural fusion may have disappeared as a historical issue, but identity is an aspect of it that very much remains. Tenth-century material is critical to any assessment of identity issues because the tenth century offers the ﬁrst opportunity to address them with the help of a reasonable quantity of written material. How did people express identity in the tenth century, when substantial (and varied) records begin? Did a consciousness of shared religious or ethnic culture inﬂuence their sense of group identity? Were they conscious of being Christian or Jew or Muslim, or did they deﬁne themselves in other ways? Recent historians have pointed out that chroniclers of medieval Spain only gradually came to use labels with a religious connotation for different parties, because political alliances were determined by other factors.⁶⁵ References to Christians do occur but they are rare before the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries—at which point religious difference began to colour the portrayal of military conﬂict. For the Muslims of southern Spain, tenth-century chronicles used terms borrowed from the Old Testament—Ishmaelites and Chaldeans—but also occasionally the words Arab and Saracen. The charters of tenth-century northern Spain number thousands and are full of localizable and personal detail; as such they have considerable potential as a source of information on naming practice and they are under-used in this respect. Usage of the word ‘Christian’ in these texts essentially reﬂects that of the chronicles: it is surprisingly rare before the eleventh century, and when it does occur it is nearly always in a formulaic expression of piety, not speciﬁc to individuals or groups (for example, ‘I, the least of Christians, make this gift’ or ‘whoever denies this gift shall be excluded from the company of Christians’).⁶⁶ Occasionally in the late tenth century the term occurs as a political identiﬁer: in 988 we hear that war against the Christians was started by the barbarians, and ⁶³ See also P. Fouracre, ‘Marmoutier: Familia versus Family. The Relations between Monastery and Serfs in Eleventh-century North-west France’, in Davies et al. (eds.), People and Space, 255–73. ⁶⁴ Cf. García de Cortázar, San Millán, 101. ⁶⁵ A. Christys, ‘Crossing the Frontier of Ninth-century Hispania’, in D. Abulaﬁa and N. Berend (eds.), Medieval Frontiers: Concepts and Practices (Aldershot, 2002), 35–53, at 43–9. ⁶⁶ For example, J. M. Mínguez Fernández (ed.), Colección diplomatica del monasterio de Sahagún, i (León, 1976), hereafter S1, S2, etc.: S128; E. Sáez and C. Sáez (eds.), Colección documental del archivo de la catedral de León 775–1230, i (775–952), ii (953–85), J. M. Ruiz Asencio (ed.), iii (986–1031) (León, 1987, 1990, 1987), hereafter Li1, Li2, Lii259, Liii512, etc.: Liii515.

82

Wendy Davies

in 998 that rebels went to the king of the Muslims (muzlemitarum), who was intending to destroy the kingdom of the Christians.⁶⁷ However, such references are extremely rare, though much more frequent in the charters of the following centuries. In tenth-century charters the enemy from the south is more usually Saracen (sarracenis, sarrazeni) than any of the more literary terms—Saracens invaded, rebels joined the Saracens—although ‘barbarians’ feature occasionally, too.⁶⁸ Perhaps surprisingly, the word Moor occurs as well (strictly, Berbers from north Africa): Moors were put to ﬂight from León c.958; Moorish slaves were handed over in gifts to wives and to monasteries earlier in the century; and a rather different but suggestive dimension is indicated by the Moorish blankets (genabe maurisca) sometimes handed over as part of the price paid in commercial transactions, as happened twice in León in 959.⁶⁹ Jews are occasionally identiﬁed in the charters: the purchaser of a vineyard is identiﬁed as ebreo in 984, as is a purchaser of a farm in the Porma valley in 997, while the bounds of another vineyard in the suburbs of León touch that of Abzecri iudeo— ‘bounded on one side by land of the sisters of Savarico, on the second by that of the priest Stephen, on the next by that of Abzecri iudeo as far as the road to Covellas, and on the fourth by the road to the River Torío’.⁷⁰ The references suggest a picture of Jewish members of the rural farming community, mingling side by side with Hispanic farmers in rural society, but differentiated. (Some of the properties are small scale—interspersed with the holdings of peasant society.) The term is rare, but the point might perhaps be expanded by the quite frequent references to people called David and Abraham—who were also integrated with the local farming communities, and were not ethnically differentiated—arguably forerunners of Castro’s cultural fusion. What is much more striking than the speciﬁc terms, however, is the fact that all such terms are rare. Most people, and there are thousands, have no such label. If they are identiﬁed, they are much more commonly identiﬁed by region or by local group—the person from Galician or Leonese or Zamoran territory or the woman from Villa X or Place Y. Alternatively, they might be members of the council (concilium, sometimes collacium/-tium as a direct synonym) of this village or that—a limited occurrence but one whose contexts suggest a stronger sense of the identity of a collectivity than the religious labels do.⁷¹ Concilium is used of single village councils in León and Castile from the 930s. It explicitly refers to ⁶⁷ S340, Liii581. ⁶⁸ S340; J. M. Andrade (ed.), O Tombo de Celanova: Estudio introductorio, edición y índices (ss. ix–xii), 2 vols. (Santiago de Compostela, 1995), hereafter Cel1, Cel2, etc.: Cel266; S9. ⁶⁹ S159, Cel576, S114; Lii318, Lii322. ⁷⁰ Lii495, Liii579, S290; but note Li19: ‘quondam iudeus, postea vero christianus’. ⁷¹ For example, Liii515, Liii577; S268, S298, S338; G. Martínez Díez (ed.), Colección documental del monasterio de San Pedro de Carde˜na (Carde˜na/Burgos, 1998)—charters hereafter C1, C2, etc.: C70, C89, C192.

The Early Middle Ages and Spanish Identity

83

a collectivity which made gifts, or made agreements about rights, or conﬁrmed or witnessed deals; named individuals might speak for the whole concilium.⁷² It was clearly the assembly of that part of the community that went to meetings (not necessarily the whole community) and was the group that took decisions for the community. In some cases it looks as if a community developed a collective identity where it had to meet frequently, for example to negotiate with new lords (rather than, as is sometimes maintained, have communal identity collapse in the face of new lordships).⁷³ Clearly people in their daily lives thought much more in terms of place and of very local collectivities than of religious or ethnic differentiation. So, four related issues dominated twentieth-century medieval history writing (cultural fusion, continuities, reconquest and repopulation, feudalism)—all with a bearing on identity and on the distinctiveness of Spain. All are very easily understandable in the context of twentieth-century politics. Changes from those preoccupations came in the 1970s; again the changes are very understandable in the context of twentieth-century political change. But issues remain. They remain because of lacunae in textual provision for the eighth and ninth centuries, and because as yet there is not enough archaeology. But there are also aspects to address that have not yet been properly addressed. The construction of group identity is important; it needs much more thought in a tenth-century context both because it underlies the much-discussed developments of the central middle ages and because it is central to our understanding of social relationships, especially at local level. The political issues of the moment are both global and regional: how to build a successful multicultural society? how to deal with terrorism?⁷⁴ Will ‘Europeanization’ become deeper, the associated political bonds tighter? Will the regions remain satisﬁed with present powers or press towards a looser federation or even independence? And how will EU membership impact on the relationship between state and region, especially in the context of enlargement?⁷⁵ It will be interesting to see how the next generation of historians will reﬂect those issues: a concern with the micro-level in the context of the macro is already apparent, as is a concern systematically to draw out the parallels between Spain and other parts of Europe.⁷⁶ What will happen to identity and the relationship of identity to micro- and macro-polities? Rees Davies could say that in the late eleventh century ‘to outsiders the distinctiveness of Wales was as impressive as its fragmentation’.⁷⁷ ⁷² S44, S335, C89, Lii466, for example. ⁷³ I hope to develop these points further elsewhere. ⁷⁴ García Morillo, La democracia, 415–25, ‘El ma˜nana no está escrito’, on terrorism and on twenty years of experiment at breakneck speed. ⁷⁵ Closa and Heywood, Spain and the European Union, 84–9, 192–201. ⁷⁶ For example, I. Álvarez Borge, Comunidades locales y transformaciones sociales en la alta edad media. Hampshire (Wessex) y el sur de Castilla, un estudio comparativo (Logron˜ o, 1999). ⁷⁷ Davies, Conquest, 15.

84

Wendy Davies

Different as it is in so many respects, perhaps Spain too was as distinctive as it was fragmented. It is the interplay between the fragments—the local—and the various levels of the supra-local that emerges as perhaps the most interesting issue for the next decade.⁷⁸ ⁷⁸ I am very grateful to Chris Wickham, Ann Christys, and Julio Escalona for their comments on a draft of this essay, and to my colleagues Christopher Abel and Axel Körner for advice on modern issues.

7 Normanizing the English Invaders of Ireland John Gillingham

‘In the contemporary Annals of Tigernach and in The Song of Dermot and the Earl, it was the English, Saxanach, Engleis, who were singled out for their group identity in the invasion of Ireland; and it was as ‘‘the conquest of the English’’ that the settlement came to be remembered.’¹ For many centuries this remained the dominant usage. ‘Only in the late nineteenth century’, according to Art Cosgrove, one of the editors of the late twentieth-century New History of Ireland, ‘by analogy with the Norman conquest of England, did the ‘‘Norman invasion’’ of Ireland become the preferred term’.² In the twentieth century this usage became, as Robin Frame observed, ‘ﬁrmly established among Irish historians and archaeologists, though some prefer hybrids, unknown to contemporaries, such as ‘‘Anglo-Norman’’ or ‘‘Anglo-French’’ ’.³ Both general reader and student of modern history can be forgiven for assuming that the Norman turn followed the advance of modern scholarship, and that ‘Norman’ was more accurate, better corresponding to twelfth-century reality. In fact, precisely the opposite was the case.⁴ This renaming in deﬁance of the overwhelming weight of the evidence led to the invasion of Ireland being seen more as a matter of elite domination rather than a movement of peoples. Only in the last twenty years has the tide begun to turn again. In 1990, for example, Rees Davies argued that the occupation should be seen less as a Norman conquest and more as part of a ‘second tidal wave

¹ Davies, Empire, 144. ² A. Cosgrove, ‘The Writing of Irish Medieval History’, IHS, 27 (1990), 97–111, 105. ³ In the entry ‘Normans’, in S. J. Connolly (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Irish History (Oxford, 1998). Cf. R. Frame, ‘English Political Culture in Later Medieval Ireland’, The History Review, 13 (2002), 2–3. ‘The difﬁculty . . . with all of these terms is that they ﬂy in the face of the overwhelming contemporary view that what these years witnessed was, to use Gerald de Barri’s phrase, adventus Anglorum, ‘‘the arrival of the English’’ ’: S. Duffy, Ireland in the Middle Ages (Houndmills, 1997), 59. ⁴ The one context in which the word ‘Norman’ was applied by a contemporary to a group of invaders was when Gerald used it to distinguish Count John of Mortain’s entourage in 1185 from the rest of the newcomers and settlers. See J. Gillingham, ‘The English Invasion of Ireland’, id., The English in the Twelfth Century (Woodbridge, 2000), 145–60, esp. 155–6.

86

John Gillingham

of Anglo-Saxon or English colonization’.⁵ Had the nineteenth-century fashion for ‘Norman’ been intended as a sign that it had been an essentially aristocratic enterprise or was this an unintended consequence of historians’ attempts to set Ireland in a wider European context and distance themselves from crude English imperialist or Irish nationalist interpretations of the past?⁶ In an essay published in 2002 I quoted Goldwin Smith, Regius Professor at Oxford from 1858 to 1865.⁷ ‘It is not the Saxon that is responsible for the conquest of Ireland, but the Norman’. Similarly Smith insisted that Giraldus and the author of the Song of Dermot ‘were not Anglo-Saxon, nor was it for the Anglo-Saxon that they wrote. They were Norman chroniclers.’ By seeing the invasion of Ireland in this light, he claimed to ‘transfer the question to a calmer realm of discussion and disarm special resentment, at least in reasonable minds’.⁸ As Macaulay had written, ‘to write on Ireland was to tread on a volcano on which the lava was still glowing’.⁹ As a political activist and one of the leading journalists of mid-Victorian England, Goldwin Smith was an inﬂuential ﬁgure. According to G. O. Trevelyan’s verse, the Liberals of the time were ‘On Bentham nursed, and fed on Goldwin Smith’.¹⁰ But I was hopelessly wrong to imply that Goldwin Smith was the earliest writer to insist that it was the Norman not the Saxon.¹¹ The earliest I have so far noticed was Samuel Smiles, later famous as the author of that mid-Victorian classic, Self-Help, with Illustrations of Character and Conduct (1859). Having just ﬁnished a four-year stint as editor of the Leeds Times, one of the most radical journals of the day, Samuel Smiles was about 30 years old when, in 1843, he turned to lecturing on Irish history.¹² In the book of his lectures he began by referring to ‘the English invasion’, but a few pages later described the invaders as ‘a swarm of the same freebooting adventurers who had already divided among them for a spoil the national wealth and property of England’. After a tirade against Norman tyranny in England after 1066, he returned to Ireland, and for a dozen pages waxed eloquent about the damage that the Normans did there. ‘Fire, rapine and murder everywhere followed the track of the invaders’. ⁵ Davies, Domination, 12. On Rees’s achievement here see J. Gillingham, ‘A Second Tidal Wave? The Historiography of English Colonization of Ireland, Scotland and Wales in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries’, in J. Piskorski (ed.), Historiographical Approaches to Medieval Colonization of East Central Europe (Boulder, Colo., 2002), 303–27, esp. 304–5, 317–20. ⁶ Tom Bartlett, who very kindly read this essay in draft, advised: ‘Never underestimate the way the Irish academy was always fearful of being accused of adding to Anglo-Irish hostility!’ ⁷ Gillingham, ‘Second Tidal Wave’, 314. ⁸ G. Smith, Irish History and Irish Character (Oxford 1861), 47, 56. ⁹ Cited by J. W. Burrow, A Liberal Descent (Cambridge, 1981), 16. ¹⁰ C. A. Kent, ‘Smith, Goldwin’, ODNB, li. 149–56. ¹¹ Conceivably his insistence helped to settle the matter; afterwards the Norman terminology was generally adopted, even in popular history such as A. M. Sullivan’s The Story of Ireland for Young and Old (1867). ¹² H. C. G. Matthew, ‘Smiles, Samuel’, ODNB, l. 1001–4.

Normanizing the English Invaders of Ireland

87

Who does not see in that ﬁrst invasion and settlement by the Normans, a clear unravelment of the condition of Ireland down to the present day? There were two races, distinct and hostile, hating and hated by each other—the one denounced as foreigners, the other as rebels.

And attached to the word ‘foreigners’ is a long footnote (in a book that contains very few footnotes). At the present day the foreigners are very erroneously stigmatized as ‘SAXONS’. If there be any use in names at all, why not call them by their right name of ‘NORMANS’, as we have above shown it to be the true one? The fact is, almost the only ‘Saxons’ in Ireland at the time of its invasion, in 1170, were those who had been sold to the Irish people as slaves after the conquest of England by the Normans.¹³

All this evidently represents a transference of the radical theory of the Norman Yoke to the ﬁeld of Irish history.¹⁴ If Smiles was the earliest writer I have so far discovered to insist on a negative, i.e., that Ireland was not invaded by Saxons, he was certainly not the earliest to identify the invaders as Normans. This had already been done by the French historian Augustin Thierry. In Thierry’s view the exploits of two Saxon resistance leaders, Robin Hood in Sherwood Forest and William Longbeard in London, meant that in the 1190s the Norman Conquest had still not been completed.¹⁵ It followed that Thierry’s history both included the invasion of Ireland and attributed it to Normans.¹⁶ This interpretation of twelfth-century English history was, as he himself acknowledged, directly derived from that set out by Sir Walter Scott in the novel set in the 1190s: Ivanhoe, ﬁrst published in 1819.¹⁷ In Scott’s famous words in chapter 1 of Ivanhoe, ‘Four generations had not sufﬁced to blend the hostile blood of the Normans and Anglo-Saxons, or to unite, by common language and mutual interests, two hostile races.’ Although, so far as I know, Scott never wrote about the invasion of Ireland, Ivanhoe evidently ¹³ S. Smiles, A History of Ireland and the Irish People under English Government (London, 1844), 2, 6–22. ¹⁴ ‘Many years later when the descendants of Samuel Smiles found themselves living in Northern Ireland, they were to be thoroughly ashamed of this book. Luckily it is out of print’: A. Smiles, Samuel Smiles and his Surroundings (London, 1956), 63. I owe my knowledge of this memoir by his granddaughter to the kindness of Owen Dudley Edwards. ¹⁵ For him the execution of Longbeard, ‘the last of the Saxons’, in 1196 marked the end of the real history of the Norman Conquest: A. Thierry, Histoire de la conquˆete de l’Angleterre par les Normands (Paris, 1825), iii. 232–89. ¹⁶ His Book Ten was entitled ‘From the invasion of Ireland by the Normans established in England until the death of Henry II’. ¹⁷ It seems that Thierry did not know of the radical English thesis of the Norman Yoke and that his interpretation was based simply on Scott and on sympathy for a conquered people: Asa Briggs, ‘Saxons, Normans and Victorians’, in his Collected Essays, Ii (Brighton, 1987), 215–35, at 223. In his introduction Thierry referred to ‘a romance writer, a man of genius’ who had recently revealed to the English people that their forefathers had a history after 1066, a history which he compared to that of the Greeks under Turkish rule in his own day.

88

John Gillingham

inﬂuenced those who did, including Scott’s fellow Scot and Edinburgh student, Samuel Smiles.¹⁸ The earliest occasional uses of the term ‘Norman’, however, pre-date both Thierry and Scott. This story begins with the antiquarian explorations of the late eighteenth century. There are some very ﬁne studies of the sense of the past in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Ireland.¹⁹ But they naturally tend to focus, as indeed did eighteenth-century historians themselves, either on the still divisive events of the seventeenth century or on the much more distant pre-Christian Gaelic past, the ‘Milesian’ period.²⁰ Rival antiquarians could and did argue ferociously about the level of Milesian civilization without seriously threatening the society in which they lived. Not only was the Milesian period pre-English, it was also pre-St Patrick. Descriptions of Milesian civilization threatened neither the Protestant Church of Ireland nor the English Ascendancy. Eighteenth-century Catholic scholars who wanted simultaneously to express their love for their native land and their political loyalty to the British crown found satisfaction in a Milesian golden age. For Protestant authors this focus sidestepped the awkward fact that the king of England arrived in Ireland as an ally of the pope. Few were able to be as frank as William Hamilton, who, in his Letters from the Coast of Co. Antrim (1786), described Henry II as ‘advancing towards this devoted nation, bearing in one hand the bloody sword of war, and in the other the iniquitous bull of Pope Adrian’.²¹ As summed up by Joep Leerssen, the focus on the Gaelic past in the late eighteenth century meant that ‘Anglo-Ireland decided to write itself out of its English-oriented ancestral history and instead to trace its cultural origins in a nationally Irish, and therefore Gaelic, frame of reference.’²² As has often been observed, there were to be important continuities ‘from Milesian antiquarianism to the Celtic revival of the 19th century which, via the Gaelic League, was eventually to exert a powerful inﬂuence on Irish nationalist ideology’.²³ The absence of any real evidence for the Milesians beyond what medieval Irish tradition transmitted through Geoffrey Keating’s Foras Feasa ar Eirenn (Foundation of Knowledge on Ireland) meant that the patriotic imagination, feeding on exciting new disciplines such as philology, ¹⁸ See Smiles, History of Ireland, 8, 25. According to Goldwin Smith, at the time of the invasion of Ireland ‘the Saxon himself lay crushed under the Norman yoke’: Irish History, 47. In the introductory chapter of his History of England, published in 1848, Macaulay, too, saw the conquest of Ireland as a Norman achievement carried through in the period when there was in his view ‘strictly speaking no English history’. See Frame, ‘Normans’, on the inﬂuence of Ivanhoe. ¹⁹ Particularly C. O’Halloran, Golden Ages and Barbarous Nations. Antiquarian Debate and Cultural Politics in Ireland c.1750–1800 (Cork, 2004), a work without which I could not possibly have embarked on this rash foray into unfamiliar territory. ²⁰ So called after Milesius, the legendary Spanish king whose sons supposedly led the Goidelic conquest of Ireland. ²¹ Cited in O’Halloran, Golden Ages, 96–7. ²² J. Leerssen, Remembrance and Imagination (Cork, 1996), 12. ²³ See, for instance, C. Kidd, ‘Gaelic Antiquity and National Identity in Enlightenment Ireland and Scotland’, EHR, 109 (1994), 1197–214.

Normanizing the English Invaders of Ireland

89

could and did run riot. Who were the Gaels? Scythians? Spaniards? Egyptians? Phoenicians? Carthaginians? Indians? Scandinavian Goths? By contrast, the question of the identity of the twelfth-century invaders was both less controversial and very much duller. But one consequence of modern specialists’ focus on the entertaining myths of a Milesian golden age is that in their allusions to the twelfth century they refer to Normans, or Anglo-Normans or Cambro-Normans, apparently indifferent to the fact that in the works they are studying the invaders were called English.²⁴ This is especially odd in the case of an author such as Leerssen, who claims to be studying ‘the discursive or literary expression of national attitudes.’²⁵ Prima facie it would seem surprising if the rebranding of people who invaded Ireland in the ‘year of destiny’ were not in some way an expression of national attitudes. From 1169 on, after all, there were two nations, two cultures in Ireland, one of them tarred with the brush of barbarism. The earliest instances of the use of ‘Norman’ that I have noticed go back to the late 1780s, to the years immediately after the founding of the Royal Irish Academy and to what has sometimes been seen as a ‘golden age’ before the 1798 rebellion. In the second volume (1788) of the Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, John Brownrigg referred to Hugh de Lacy as governor of Meath ‘of a Norman family’ who built castles ‘establishing therein valiant knights, with colonies of Norman and Anglo-Saxon soldiery’.²⁶ The description of Hugh de Lacy as ‘of a Norman family’ suggests that it may have been in the context of their ancestry that the English invaders were initially turned into Normans. The real and imagined genealogies of the rulers of eighteenth-century Irish society are most conveniently set out in John Lodge’s The Peerage of Ireland. Here time and again the genealogies of the families that came over to Ireland are traced back not to their arrival in Ireland but to the Norman Conquest of England. The entry for Bellew is fairly typical. The ancient family of Bellew derives its origins from Normandy as is evident from the Roll of Battle Abbey, one of the name accompanying William the Conqueror in his expedition to England, and it is to be presumed that at, or soon after the arrival of the English in this Kingdom, they were transplanted here.²⁷

No doubt many Anglo-Irish landed families had long claimed Norman ancestry, but the Roll of Battle Abbey and the printing of books such as The Peerage ²⁴ I have not looked for the ﬁrst uses of ‘Cambro-Norman’. An antiquarian such as Edward Ledwich occasionally noted the presence of ‘Welsh adventurers’ in 1169–70, without, however, feeling any need to re-label the invasion: E. Ledwich, Antiquities of Ireland (Dublin, 1790), 190, 208. A few historians were sufﬁciently impressed by the Welsh contribution to refer to the pre-1175 invaders as British, saving ‘English’ for those who came after that date, e.g. Samuel Burdy, The History of Ireland from the Earliest Ages to the Union (Edinburgh, 1817), 22–34, 40 ff. ²⁵ J. T. Leerssen, Mere Irish and the Fíor-Ghael (Amsterdam, 1986), 2–3. ²⁶ ‘A Descriptive Account of the Fort of Ardnorcher or Horseleap’, Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, 2 (1788), Antiquities, 44–5. ²⁷ J. Lodge, The Peerage of Ireland, 4 vols. (Dublin, 1754), iv. 163.

90

John Gillingham

of Ireland gave wider currency to the notion.²⁸ One consequence of this was that some families rediscovered French versions of their names—the Powers, for example, became the ‘de la Poers’.²⁹ Even so, Lodge’s Peerage takes it for granted that, whatever their ancestry, those who came over to Ireland from 1169 onwards were English. It was the English who introduced civility to an island hitherto in a ‘desperate state’.³⁰ My impression is that the ﬁrst author to refer to the invaders themselves as Norman was the Dublin-born antiquarian Edward Ledwich (1739–1823). He did so only very occasionally, however, generally preferring to follow timehonoured convention, so it is not surprising that his usage here should have attracted no attention—particularly when so much else he wrote was deliberately and successfully provocative.³¹ It looks as though he chose the word ‘Norman’ not just for stylistic variation, but that it occurred to him more readily in some contexts than in others. For example, when discussing the earliest kinds of fortiﬁcation used by the Irish, he referred to a time ‘antecedent to the Norman invasion in 1169’.³² It seems likely that ‘Norman’ was a word that came easily to him when, as here, he was thinking about buildings and architecture. In an essay ﬁrst published in 1781 he had referred, without further elaboration, to ‘the Gothic or Norman style’. What he had in mind by this is shown by the letter read to the Society of Antiquaries in London on 23 March 1786, in which he suggested that ‘the Gothic style, or that mode of building with pointed arches’ was the new kind of building which the Normans, according to William of Malmesbury, had introduced into England. He repeated the point in an essay entitled ‘Observations on Saxon and Gothic Architecture’, which he included in the rearranged and expanded 1804 edition of Antiquities.³³ Thus a close associate, Joseph Cooper Walker, in an essay ‘On the Rise and Progress of Architecture in Ireland’, described the late twelfth-century cathedrals of Dublin, Waterford, and Limerick, as ‘in the Norman or Gothic fashion’.³⁴ As things turned out, Ledwich’s classiﬁcation was fairly soon overthrown in favour of the system advanced by the most inﬂuential of English architectural historians, ²⁸ See also a sample of entries from vol. I: Brabazon, Moore, Montgomery, Butler, FitzWilliam, Perceval. Other families naturally claimed yet more glorious ancestors such as Charlemagne (Courcy), King Milesius (O’Hara), or the Round Table’s Sir Tristram (St Lawrence). ²⁹ F. James, Lords of the Ascendancy. The Irish House of Lords and its Members, 1600–1800 (Dublin, 1995), 155. ³⁰ Lodge, Peerage, i. 194, 246. ³¹ See below, p. 93. ³² Ledwich, Antiquities, 189. Most of the essays in this volume ﬁrst appeared separately in 1788 and 1789: O’Halloran, Golden Ages, 61. ³³ E. Ledwich, ‘A Dissertation on the Round Towers of Ireland’, Collectanea de Rebus Hibernicis, ed. Charles Vallancey, II, no. 9 [1781] (Dublin, 1786), 131; id., ‘Observation on our antient Churches’, Archaeologia, 8 (1787), 165–94, esp. 189–94; Antiquities of Ireland, 2nd edn. (Dublin, 1804), 187–210, 193, though contrast Antiquities (1790), 73–4. ³⁴ J. C. Walker, Historical Memoirs of the Irish Bards, 2nd edn. (Dublin 1818), ii. 215–39, at 238. On Walker and his association with Ledwich see O’Halloran, Golden Ages, 4, 67–8, 139.

Normanizing the English Invaders of Ireland

91

Thomas Rickman. In Rickman’s four-part scheme—Norman, Early English, Decorated, and Perpendicular—churches which Ledwich had called Norman were re-baptized as Early English. None the less Rickman’s work popularized the term ‘Norman’ as an architectural label and his view that ‘the Norman style prevailed until the end of the reign of Henry II’ may well have helped to Normanize the events of that king’s lifetime.³⁵ There was a similar usage in the ﬁeld of military architecture. Referring to the castles built by the invaders, Walker said that ‘these early English castles have been denominated Norman’ and observed that ‘Norman castles reared their lofty battlements in every part of Ireland.’³⁶ As with castles so also in warfare more generally: the twelfth-century English were seen as Normanized. Thomas Campbell followed convention in referring to the ‘English invasion’ and ‘English adventurers’, but described them as ‘thoroughly versed in the Norman tactics, then the most excellent in Europe’.³⁷ In other ways, too, the English were perceived as Norman in style. On one occasion Ledwich wrote: ‘At the arrival of the English the Irish wore long hair and beards, these the Normans esteemed barbarous.’³⁸ This may well have made it easy to slip into thinking of the English as Norman. Perhaps this is what Ledwich caught himself doing, because whereas in 1790 he had written ‘antecedent to the Norman invasion’, in 1804 he changed it to ‘previous to the arrival of the English’.³⁹ His Antiquities, however, contained one essay, on Glendalough, in which Ledwich called the invaders themselves ‘Norman’—indeed he did so several times. In this essay he criticized the rapacity of the newcomers, particularly their disregard for church property, a ‘pestilent example’, he called it.⁴⁰ There is no doubt that, as a member of the Protestant Ascendancy, he thoroughly approved of the English takeover. ‘It is historically true’, he wrote in a letter to Walker in 1786, ‘that they [the English], under providence humanized the Irish, who otherwise at this day would be perfect barbars’.⁴¹ In a London edition of The Antiquities of Ireland he wrote, in yet another example of his inconsistent terminology, that ‘the greatest blessing Providence could bestow on this isle, ³⁵ An Attempt to Discover the Styles of English Architecture (London, 1817), 39–44. ³⁶ Walker, Historical Memoirs, ii. 225–7. ³⁷ T. Campbell, Strictures on the Ecclesiastical and Literary History of Ireland (Dublin, 1789) 233, 236–9, 241–2. In fact, this point had been made earlier, e.g. by George Lyttelton. In his massive study of Henry II’s reign the invaders always appear as English with, where appropriate, the occasional admixture of Welsh, but on one critically important occasion they drew up their forces ‘according to the excellent discipline of the Normans’: The History of the Life of Henry II, 2nd edn., 4 vols. (London, 1767–71), iii. 57. On Campbell, see O’Halloran, Golden Ages, 4, 62–3, 86; W. Love, ‘Edmund Burke and an Irish Historiographical Controversy’, History and Theory, 2 (1976), 181–98. ³⁸ Ledwich, Antiquities (1790), 347. His footnote here is to Gerald’s Topographia, but there is no mention there of Normans, and it is clear he was thinking of the passage in Expugnatio Hibernica when in 1185 John’s Normans mocked Irish beards. See above n. 4. ³⁹ Ledwich, Antiquities (1804), 280. ⁴⁰ Ledwich Antiquities, (1790), 49–53. ⁴¹ O’Halloran, Golden Ages, 139.

92

John Gillingham

was the granting it to a people whose policy and manners were quite unlike those of the Irish; and this people—WERE THE ENGLISH OR NORMANS [sic].’⁴² But as a Church of Ireland clergyman, vicar of Aghaboe, he evidently disapproved of laymen stealing church property. Ledwich was keenly aware of the political climate in which he was writing, the optimism of the 1780s, when Roman Catholics such as Charles O’Conor were admitted to the Royal Irish Academy and there was hope of a more equal relationship between the two kingdoms. This was, as he put it, this happy period of liberal sentiments and domestic concord, when the difference of religious opinions excite neither jealousy nor acrimony; and when Roman Catholicism has abjured the doctrines of the Hildebrands, the Urbans and Adrians, and Christians of every denomination embrace each other with fraternal regard.⁴³

This was no time to write about the rapacity of the English. It was not only in the nineteenth century that scholars wanted to take the heat out of debates. Charles O’Conor’s preface to the 1786 edition of John Curry’s Historical and Critical Review of the Civil Wars of Ireland provoked Ledwich to write to Walker: Is this a time to talk of the oppressions of the English? . . . in O’Conor’s preface we are told, the present generation have nothing to do with past times. What end could he then serve in laying before the public this long catalogue of English cruelties . . . ⁴⁴

In the preface to his Historical Essay on the Dress of Ancient and Modern Irish (1788), Joseph Walker wrote that a friend (probably Ledwich) had told him that he had ‘dwelt too much on the oppressions of the English’. He denied this: the wrongs of the English only live now in the pages of history. Mingling their blood with ours, that brave people have conciliated our affections. We have taken them to our arms and stiﬂed the remembrance of their oppressions in a warm embrace.⁴⁵

The embracing was not so easy after the rising of 1798, its suppression and the Act of Union. ‘It is a happy thing for the country’, wrote Ledwich in 1803, ‘that Government sees its peace can only be secured by severity. It was so since the English landed here in 1169, and will ever be so.’⁴⁶ In the second edition of his Antiquities he deleted what he had written about ‘this happy period’, instead reminding his ⁴² F. Grose, The Antiquities of Ireland (London, 1791, though the preface by Ledwich makes it plain that he was the author and is dated 1794), i. p. xxvi. This passage apart, here the 12th-century new arrivals are always the English: ibid., pp. xiv, xx, xxv, xxvii. See ibid., ii (London, 1795), p. xi for ‘the Norman style’ of church architecture. ⁴³ Antiquities (1790), 450. ⁴⁴ As cited in O’Halloran, Golden Ages, 164. On O’Conor’s problems and the expedients to which he was driven see W. D. Love, ‘Charles O’Conor of Belanagare and Thomas Leland’s ‘‘Philosophical’’ History of Ireland’, IHS, 13 (1962), 1–25. ⁴⁵ I have not found a copy of the 1788 edition. It was reprinted in Walker, Historical Memoirs (1818), ii. 1–112, here 3–4. ⁴⁶ In a letter to Thomas Percy, cited in O’Halloran, Golden Ages, 176.

Normanizing the English Invaders of Ireland

93

readers that they should not ‘deny their obligations to the fostering care of Britain’.⁴⁷ But it had been in those more optimistic years that he had ﬁrst used ‘Norman’ as an alternative to ‘English’. After all, as he had told Walker in 1786: ‘You are bound personally, politically and patriotically to be polite to the English.’⁴⁸ By calling the robbers of Glendalough ‘Normans’, he was taking his own advice. Ledwich’s was an inﬂuential voice. ‘Modern Irish historiography’, it has been said, ‘was born in 1790 with the publication of the Revd Edward Ledwich’s Antiquities of Ireland .’⁴⁹ He took an aggressive part in the great scholarly controversies of the day. His explanation of the notion of a Milesian civilization was dismissive. ‘Uneasy under the English yoke and unable to shake it off, the miserable Seanachies of those times amused themselves and their countrymen with fabulous tales of the antiquity and nobility of their descent; the grandeur and power of their former princes, and the distinguished learning and civility of their ancestors.’ Such ‘idle tales’, as he put it, ‘to be condemned, need but to be read’. His view of Colonel Charles Vallancey’s theories of an eastern origin of the Gaels, whether Carthaginian or Phoenician or Indian, was that these were ‘wild ﬂights . . . beyond the imagination even of the knight of La Mancha’.⁵⁰ His scepticism and his desire to make a splash led him to deny the existence of St Patrick.⁵¹ Not surprisingly his opinion was cited as authoritative in the very ﬁrst sentence of Memoirs of the Different Rebellions by Richard Musgrave (MP and member of the Orange Order).⁵² But it was not just Protestants whom he inﬂuenced. As Donald MacCartney put it, ‘Ledwich left a deep impression: he could be accepted or rejected but not ignored.’⁵³ On the present matter his own inconsistent usage was followed, even by Catholics—no doubt casually, since this was a side-issue. For example, the Catholic lawyer and historian Francis Plowden twice referred to Norman invaders and adventurers in a two-volume history of Ireland published in 1803.⁵⁴ Gradually ‘Norman’ became more common, though it still remained secondary to ‘English’. For William Phelan the newcomers were English, but once he referred to nobles ‘of Norman race’.⁵⁵ The poet and song-writer Thomas ⁴⁷ Ledwich, Antiquities (1804), preface. ⁴⁸ Cited in O’Halloran, Golden Ages, 139. ⁴⁹ O. MacDonagh, States of Mind (London, 1983), 1. ⁵⁰ Ledwich, Antiquities (1790), 1, 82, 297. In deriding Vallancey’s theory of oriental origins for ‘the Irish kiss’, Campbell (Strictures, 307) went further still: ‘You say from the East, the Irish learned to kiss/and pray, letter’d Col’nel, who taught them to p-ss?’. ⁵¹ O’Halloran, Golden Ages, 88–9. ⁵² R. Musgrave, Memoirs of the Different Rebellions in Ireland from the Arrival of the English, (Dublin, 1801), 4. ⁵³ D. MacCartney, ‘The Writing of History in Ireland 1800–30’, IHS, 10 (1957), 347–62, at 349. ⁵⁴ F. Plowden, An Historical Review of the State of Ireland from the Invasion of that Country under Henry II to its Union with Great Britain (London, 1803), i. 30, 33–4. ⁵⁵ W. Phelan, History of the Policy of the Church of Rome in Ireland (London, 1827), 66–116, 104. This usage probably reﬂects the belief that while ‘the people’ were English, aristocrats were Norman.

94

John Gillingham

Moore, in his History of Ireland (1837), usually wrote of the ﬁrst generation of invaders as ‘the English’, called Miles de Cogan an ‘English adventurer’ and Walter de Riddlesford ‘an English knight’, but referred to Robert FitzStephen and Maurice FitzGerald as Norman.⁵⁶ In one of his essays in the Nation in the 1840s Thomas Davis compiled a list of subjects he thought suitable for patriotic paintings. Among them were ‘Roderic in Conference with the Normans’ and ‘O’Brien, O’Connor and M’Carthy making Peace to attack the Normans’. No doubt by this time Augustin Thierry’s usage had also made itself felt; Davis referred to him as ‘the best above any other historian that ever lived’.⁵⁷ In his most famous Nation essay, ‘Our National Language’ (April 1843), Davis adopted a hyphenated form: ‘Probably 5/6, or more, of us are Celts. What business have we with the Norman-Sasanach?’⁵⁸ This never caught on, nor indeed did ‘Normanno-Anglic’—Ledwich’s one foray into the realm of hyphenation.⁵⁹ But by the time of Thomas Moore’s History another hyphenated term was gaining favour: Anglo-Norman. The earliest use of it that I have so far discovered occurs in the English title and introduction to the 1811 bilingual edition of the ﬁrst part of Geoffrey Keating’s Foras Feasa ar Eirenn, published by William Haliday, vice-president of the recently founded Gaelic Society.⁶⁰ In his introduction the anonymous translator—since identiﬁed as Patrick Lynch, from 1815 secretary of the largely Catholic Gaelic Society, and author of a posthumously published life of St Patrick ⁶¹–refers to ‘the Anglo-Norman expedition’ and the ‘Anglo-Norman invasion’.⁶² This is not what Keating himself had written. He always referred to the twelfth-century invaders either simply as foreigners (Gaill) or as old foreigners (Sean-Ghaill) and to their invasions as the foreign invasion (gabáltais Gall); indeed, he used the last term to mark an epoch in Irish history, for example, ‘from the time of Patrick to the foreign invasion’.⁶³ Writing in the 1630s, it made perfectly good sense to distinguish, as ⁵⁶ T. Moore, The History of Ireland (London, 1837), ii. 215, 238, 311. ⁵⁷ T. Davis, Essays and Poems 1846 (London, 1945), 113–15. For his opinion of Thierry and Thierry’s admiration for Moore see M. Brown, The Politics of Irish Literature (London, 1972), 46–7. ⁵⁸ Davis, Essays and Poems, 72. ⁵⁹ In a discussion of the law brought in by the Normanno-Anglic princes, the language of which he described as gibberish, a jargon intelligible ‘only to professors and their eleves’ and which he called ‘Norman Law-Latin’: Ledwich, Antiquities (1804), 304. ⁶⁰ A Complete History of Ireland from the First Colonization of the Island by Parthalon to the Anglo-Norman Invasion, I (Dublin, 1811). Only Vol. I was ever printed. ⁶¹ P. J. Dowling, ‘Patrick Lynch, Schoolmaster 1754–1818’, Studies, 20 (1931); O’Halloran, Golden Ages, 174–5, 183. ⁶² A Complete History of Ireland, pp. ii, xi. Indeed, ibid., p. xv, Lynch says that James McGeoghegan had referred to his own ‘Anglo-Norman extraction’, whereas in the passage indicated McGeoghegan had, in fact, said that he was English: J. McGeoghegan, Histoire de l’Irlande, 3 vols. (Paris, 1758), i. 51. ⁶³ The History of Ireland by Geoffrey Keating, Pt I, ed. and trans. D. Comyn, Irish Texts Society (London, 1902), 2, 6, 16, 24, 52, 94, 130.

Normanizing the English Invaders of Ireland

95

Keating did, between the ‘old foreigners’ and the ‘new foreigners’, the latter being sixteenth- and seventeenth-century arrivals. A distinction in these terms made much less sense a century or two later when the ‘new foreigners’ had themselves been in Ireland for generations. This may explain why Dermod O’Connor, the translator of the ﬁrst printed English version of Keating, chose to fall in with traditional usage and render all these foreigners as ‘English’.⁶⁴ Keating himself had claimed descent from the old foreigners.⁶⁵ But Lynch, when translating Keating’s claim, rendered it as ‘I am myself of ancient British extraction’. He was evidently not at all certain how to proceed. In his introduction to the translation he in one place said that Keating was ‘of English extraction and origin’, in another that he was ‘of old Norman extraction’, and in yet another that the Keatings had landed in Ireland ‘before the other Anglo-Norman invaders’.⁶⁶ In his translation of Keating’s Preface, Lynch began by rendering ‘sean-Ghaill’ as ‘old English’ but presumably felt that ‘invasion of the old English’ sounded odd and/or cumbersome; from then on he referred simply to the ‘English invasion’.⁶⁷ Yet, although he did it the once, he plainly felt uncomfortable calling Keating and the Keatings English, perhaps because he wanted to signal the difference between them and those Englishmen such as Spenser, Stanihurst, Camden, Moryson, Davies, and Campion, who had been Keating’s own bˆetes noires. But given that Lynch also managed to describe Keating as ‘of old Norman extraction’, why had he not simply gone down the Norman path? This, after all, was to be the practice of the twentieth-century translators in what remains the standard edition of Geoffrey Keating’s Foras Feasa ar Eirinn. For them the ‘old foreigners’ were Normans, and the ‘foreign invasion’ was the Norman invasion.⁶⁸ By 1811 Ledwich and others had at least brought the term ‘Norman’ into circulation among the learned, so this might have seemed to Lynch an obvious way of dealing with his difﬁculty. But for a translator who prided himself on his accuracy, as Lynch did, this was not an entirely satisfactory solution. For Keating had, in fact, used the Irish word for ‘Norman’—only he had used it to mean the descendants of those Vikings or Danes who invaded Ireland in the ninth century.⁶⁹ And most eighteenth-century antiquarians such as O’Conor followed Keating’s usage.⁷⁰ ⁶⁴ Jeoffrey Keating, The General History of Ireland till the Arrival of Henry II (Dublin, 1723), though on one occasion O’Connor did write ‘the old English’: ibid., p. i. ⁶⁵ History of Ireland by Geoffrey Keating, Pt I, 77; indeed the Keatings, listed among the Sean-Gall, are the very last family to be mentioned by name in his history, Pt III, ed. and trans. P. Dineen (London, 1908), 368. On the basis of his own ‘old foreign’ descent, Keating claimed impartiality for what he said about the Gaels. ⁶⁶ Complete History of Ireland, Life of Author, pp. ii, xviii; Keating’s Preface, p. xcv. ⁶⁷ Ibid., Keating’s Preface, pp. vi–xi, xxv, xxxii, ciii. ⁶⁸ History of Ireland by Geoffrey Keating, Pt I, 2–7, 16–17, 24–5, 28–9, 52–3, 94–5; Pt III, 2–11, 290–1, 294–5, 300–1, 352–9, 362–3, 366–9. ⁶⁹ Ibid., Pt I, 50; Pt III, 300. ⁷⁰ But it seems unlikely that Catholic writers such as Charles O’Conor referred to the 9thcentury invaders as Normans rather than as Danes or Vikings ‘as if to emphasise their kinship

96

John Gillingham

Indeed Ledwich, in an essay published in 1781 and reprinted in 1804, referred to the Ostmen of twelfth-century Wexford as ‘Normans’.⁷¹ I suggest therefore that Lynch, rather than reinforce the uncertainty created by Ledwich’s inconsistent use of the word ‘Norman’, in the end, and particularly in his rendering of Keating’s title, opted for Anglo-Norman, a word that had been around for a while, though not yet—so far as I know—applied to the invaders of Ireland.⁷² He probably knew the Huguenot Andre Ducarel’s 1767 book AngloNorman Antiquities Considered in a Tour through Part of Normandy.⁷³ He would certainly have known of the term ‘Anglo-Norman government’ in David Hume’s History of England.⁷⁴ As a variation on both English and Norman it proved to be a convenient term, and was subsequently used by, for example, Joseph Walker, James Hardiman, Augustin Thierry, and Thomas Moore, as well as by Keating’s next translator, John O’Mahony.⁷⁵ But even in the mid-nineteenth century careful scholars such as John O’Donovan preferred to call the invaders the English.⁷⁶ If the term ‘Anglo-Norman’ was one side-effect of the Norman turn in Irish history, another was the way in which the word ‘Norman’ focused attention on the biological descent of the invaders. This raises the possibility that the gradual establishment of the Norman label during the course of the nineteenth century was linked to the rise of racialist thinking—not the age-old assumption that race was important, but a climate of opinion in which some men of science were beginning to make the conscious argument that, in shaping people, race was more important than anything else. Before the rediscovery of Mendel, they may well not have had the information to make much sense—as it seems to us—of the difference between biological and cultural transmission; none the less they were insisting that there was a difference and believed that they were making with the equally unwelcome colonists of the twelfth century’ (as suggested in O’Halloran, Golden Ages, 92–3), since in O’Conor’s day the 12th-century colonists were still thought of as English. ⁷¹ E. Ledwich, Essay Towards the History and Antiquity of Irishtown and Kilkenny, repr. in Antiquities (1804). See also J. C. Walker, Historical Memoirs of the Irish Bards (Dublin, 1786), 106 (2nd edn. (1818), 147). Cf. for the form ‘Normen’, Ledwich, Antiquities (1790), 29. ⁷² He retained it in The Life of St Patrick (Dublin, 1828), 36. ⁷³ This was cited by Ledwich, Antiquities (1790), 73–4. ⁷⁴ But for Hume, who provoked a greater interest in Irish history with his taunt that the Irish still lacked a ‘philosophical historian’, the invaders of Ireland remained unambiguously the English. ⁷⁵ Walker, Historical Memoirs (1818), 227; J. Hardiman, The History of Galway (Dublin, 1820), 34, 42, though compare 44; Thierry, Histoire, iii. 162, 430; Moore, History of Ireland, 211, 213, 217, 222, 237; G. Keating, The History of Ireland from the Earliest Period to the English Invasion, trans. J. O’Mahony (New York, 1857), pp. xxii, xxxi–xxxvi, lix, 12, 639–42, 649–50. ⁷⁶ Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters, ed. J. O’Donovan, 7 vols. (Dublin, 1851, repr. 1854), i. p. xxxiii; ii. 1165, n., 1176, n., 1185, n.

Normanizing the English Invaders of Ireland

97

sense of it.⁷⁷ ‘With me’, wrote the anatomist Robert Knox, ‘race, or hereditary descent is everything; it stamps the man.’⁷⁸ This pattern of thought was relatively easily applied to Irish history since the age-old assumptions about race were particularly prominent in Irish tradition. Even in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries most authors who wrote about the course of Irish history saw it not as driven by autonomous social change but by external forces, migration, colonization, and conquest. This is how it had been perceived in the Book of Invasions, and the legacy of 1169, reinforced by subsequent events such as the massacres of 1641, meant that it remained so. Many Catholics continued to believe that an advanced civilization had ﬂourished in Ireland for centuries until it was brought down by the invasion of the Vikings. For them the ‘isle of saints and scholars’ was the continuation of Gaelic Milesian civilization, not a ﬁfth-century Roman import. The stadialist interpretation of history characteristic of the Scottish Enlightenment found few adherents in Ireland. And even those Irish Protestants who were not antipathetic to stadialist theories tended to assume that it had been the English who brought civility to Ireland. As Colin Kidd has observed: ‘One of the implications of the invasion thesis as an explanation of the major motors of historical change is that national-ethnic characters are relatively invariant.’⁷⁹ This made it easy to think of the invaders of 1169 as being essentially the same as the invaders of 1066, and to rename them accordingly. As Rees Davies observed: ‘Historical sensibilities, so it seems to me, are much more excited and excitable in some periods than in others. The late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries are one such period’.⁸⁰ While antiquarians and historians argued excitedly about their perceptions of the Milesian Gaels, at a time when so much else in ‘the Irish mind’—shamrocks, wolfhounds, round towers, the cult of Brian Boru, and the image of an ecumenical St Patrick—was being shaped,⁸¹ a new way of referring to the English invaders slipped in virtually unobserved. ⁷⁷ On the age-old assumptions see S. Reynolds, ‘Our Forefathers? Tribes, Peoples, and Nations in the Historiography of the Age of Migrations’, in A. C. Murray (ed.), After Rome’s Fall: Essays Presented to Walter Goffart ( Toronto, 1998), 17–36, 25–32. For the inﬂuence of Sir Walter Scott’s use of the language of race see M. Banton, The Idea of Race (London, 1977), 20–3, and C. Kidd,‘Teutonist Ethnology and Scottish Nationalist Inhibition, 1780–1880’, SHR, 74 (1995), 45–68, 55–6. ⁷⁸ R. Knox, The Races of Man (London, 1850), 6. This book was based on lectures which Knox had given in Newcastle, Manchester, and Liverpool in 1846. His obsession with the Norman Conquest, and with continuing Norman tyranny, might have inﬂuenced Samuel Smiles, who remembered Knox as the most brilliant lecturer he heard while studying medicine at Edinburgh: Smiles, Samuel Smiles, 26–7. ⁷⁹ Kidd, ‘Gaelic Antiquity’, 1211–12. ⁸⁰ Rees Davies, The Matter of Britain and the Matter of England (Oxford, 1996), 8. ⁸¹ R. F. Foster, ‘History and the Irish Question’, TRHS, 5th ser., 33 (1983), 169–92, 171–2.

8 Lordship and Society in Twelfth-Century Clydesdale Alexander Grant

‘Malcolonus [also ‘Willelmus’] Rex Scotorum Justiciariis baronibus vicecomitibus ministris Francis et Anglicis Scottis Walensibus Gauelensibus et omnibus ecclesie sancti Kentegerni de Glasgu et eiusdem episcopi parrochianis salutem.’¹ The inclusion of ‘Welsh’ within the racial address of Scottish royal charters reﬂects special pleading by the bishops of Glasgow, but nevertheless demonstrates how memories of the old Brythonic Strathclyde, or northern Cumbria, remained potent during the later twelfth century²—when the most striking element of the racial address was the incoming ‘French’. The juxtaposition of ‘Welsh’ and ‘French’, not to mention ‘English’, ‘Scots’ and ‘Galwegians’, brings us into the world so brilliantly illuminated by Rees Davies, and hence provides an ideal theme for a Scottish contribution to the present volume. Davies’s medieval ‘British’ world, however, is contentious in current Scottish historiographical circles—particularly regarding the twelfth century— because of his focus on an apparently inexorable advance of Anglo-Norman/ English royal power, feudal lordship and cultural dominance throughout the rest of the British Isles.³ For Scotland, his analysis derived from what are still the standard general books,⁴ which—though balancing ‘new and old’⁵—highlight extensive ‘Normanization’ and ‘feudalization’ under David I ¹ RRS, i, no. 258 (1153×1165); also RRS, ii, nos. 179 (1173×1191), 507 (1211×1214). ² D. Broun, ‘The Welsh Identity of the Kingdom of Strathclyde c.900–c.1200’, Innes Review, 55 (2004), 111–80, esp. 122–5, 141–3. ³ Exempliﬁed by the titles of his Wiles and Ford Lectures: Domination and Conquest: The Experience of Ireland, Scotland and Wales 1100–1300 (Cambridge, 1990), and The First English Empire: Power and Identities in the British Isles 1093–1343 (Oxford, 2000). ⁴ G. W. S. Barrow, The Kingdom of the Scots (1973; 2nd edn, Edinburgh, 2003); A. A. M. Duncan, Scotland: The Making of the Kingdom (Edinburgh, 1975); G. W. S. Barrow, The AngloNorman Era in Scottish History (Oxford, 1980); G. W. S. Barrow, Kingship and Unity: Scotland 1000–1306 (London, 1981); K. J. Stringer, Earl David of Huntingdon, 1152–1219 (Edinburgh, 1985). ⁵ See G. W. S. Barrow, ‘David I of Scotland: The Balance of New and Old’, in his Scotland and its Neighbours in the Middle Ages (London, 1992), ch. 3.

Lordship and Society in Twelfth-Century Clydesdale

99

(1124–53), Malcolm IV (1153–65), and William I (1165–1214). But recently Scottish historians have been challenging the concepts of feudalization and emphasizing continuity,⁶ especially with the many Gaelic earldoms and lordships.⁷ The historiographical balance has shifted signiﬁcantly from ‘new’ to ‘old’—which obviously affects Davies’s ‘British’ analysis. Yet in the late eleventh century ‘old’ Scotland (or Alba: roughly east and south of a line from Dumbarton to Inverness) had a two-part territorial structure, in which earldoms and lordships intermingled with extensive areas under much more direct royal control that were probably larger than all the earldoms and lordships combined.⁸ This two-part structure survived long after 1100, which means that there was continuity within the ‘royal’ territory just as much as within the ‘native’ earldoms and lordships. During the twelfth century, however, sheriffs (vicecomites, literally ‘vice-earls’) became the main administrators of the ‘royal’ territory;⁹ and it was within their sheriffdoms (fairly evenly distributed from Berwick to Inverness) that the incoming ‘French’ were mostly settled. Obviously, therefore, questions about the extent and nature of change in twelfth-century Scotland require the new sheriffdoms to be examined as thoroughly as the old earldoms and lordships. But surprisingly (and in striking contrast to England) no in-depth study of any sheriffdom or ‘county’ has been published for medieval Scotland: it is a serious historiographical gap. Consequently, an introductory sketch for such a study is offered here. In view of the ‘Welsh’ connection, I have chosen to deal with the sheriffdom of Lanark, or Clydesdale ‘proper’,¹⁰ which constituted Strathclyde’s core. This was a major area of Normanization, and features prominently in general works; but it has never been analysed systematically. My foray into twelfth-century Clydesdale comes in two parts: the ﬁrst considers its top-level socio-political structure; the second looks in more detail at landed society within one of its internal ⁶ Most strikingly R. D. Oram, ‘Gold into Lead? The State of Early Medieval Scottish History’, in T. Brotherstone and D. Ditchburn (eds.), Freedom and Authority: Historical and Historiographical Essays Presented to Grant G. Simpson (East Linton, 2000), 32–43; S. Reynolds, ‘Fiefs and Vassals in Scotland: A View from Outside’, SHR, 82 (2003), 176–93. ⁷ C. J. Neville, Native Lordship in Medieval Scotland: The Earldoms of Strathearn and Lennox, c.1140–1365 (Dublin, 2005); R. Oram, The Lordship of Galloway (Edinburgh, 2000); R. A. McDonald, The Kingdom of the Isles (East Linton, 1997); S. Boardman and A. Ross (eds.), The Exercise of Power in Medieval Scotland (Dublin, 2003). ⁸ A. Grant, ‘The Construction of the Early Scottish State’, in J. R. Maddicott and D. M. Palliser (eds.), The Medieval State: Essays Presented to James Campbell (London, 2000), 47–71, esp. 56–63 (dealing with the country north of the Forth, but applying also to the south). In the ‘royal’ territory control was maintained chieﬂy through local agents, especially (north of the Forth) the thanes. ⁹ RRS, i. 37–50; ii. 42; P. G. B. McNeill and H. L. MacQueen (eds.), Atlas of Scottish History to 1707 (Edinburgh, 1996), 183–6, 192–4. Earldoms and lordships were technically within sheriffdoms, but that rarely applied in practice. ¹⁰ i.e., the early 12th-century ‘Clud’: G. W. S. Barrow, ‘The Pattern of Lordship and Feudal Settlement in Cumbria’, JMH, 1 (1975), 126. It was distinct from what became the lordship of Renfrew; so this (though technically within Lanarkshire until 1404) is excluded here.

100

Alexander Grant

units, the relatively well-documented¹¹ parish and barony of Lesmahagow. The result should usefully enhance our understanding of what was going on in at least part of the ‘royal’ territory during a distinctly controversial era of Scottish history. In medieval Scotland, the top-level socio-political structure was based on baronies: estates held of the crown with signiﬁcant governmental powers, including the right to judge and execute thieves, denoted by the archaic jingle ‘sake, soke, toll, team and infangthief’ (usually accompanied by furca et fossa, ‘gallows and pit’). These estates included not only the great provincial earldoms and lordships but also hundreds of smaller yet substantial local properties, which (outside the earldoms and great lordships) were the main units of local power and the basic administrative subdivisions of the sheriffdoms; the barons of these baronies were both private landowners and royal agents (under the sheriffs’ supervision). The word ‘barony’ itself mostly occurs after 1300, when the institutional concept was fully developed. But before then, although the speciﬁc term is rare, there are plenty of references to sake and soke, etc.; and it is clear that the majority of medieval Scottish baronies actually dated from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.¹² That certainly applies to pre-1300 Clydesdale, which can be reckoned to have contained 27 lay baronies, plus four ecclesiastical ones; these are detailed in Table 1 and Map 1 (pp. 102–4). As Table 1 shows, 18 of the lay baronies are safely traceable to the second half of the twelfth century; the rest were probably equally old, but pre-1200 evidence about them has not survived. Table 1 also indicates a close barony–parish equivalence. Medieval Clydesdale contained 42 parishes: three were in Carnwath barony, two in Kilbride barony, and another two in Walston barony. Then, most strikingly, individual baronies corresponded to the eponymous parishes in no fewer than 22 instances. That leaves 12 parishes: two contained both a lay barony and an ecclesiastical estate; six belonged entirely to ecclesiastical lords (especially Glasgow Cathedral); and the remaining four were the only areas not held baronially (though containing lesser landholdings, they count here as ‘crown lands’, with the sheriff replacing the local baron). Admittedly this analysis derives simply from the names, and does not prove absolute territorial coincidence. That is demonstrable in only four cases: Bothwell, where both barony and parish consisted of ‘the land between the North and South Calder Waters’; Douglas and Carmichael, where the boundaries ¹¹ Because of the material in Kelso Lib.; all cited items have been checked with the original, National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh, MS Adv. 34.5.1. For the general problem of pre-1300 documentation, see B. Webster, Scotland from the Eleventh Century to 1603 (Cambridge, 1975), esp. 122–7. ¹² The Court Book of the Barony of Carnwath, 1523–1542, ed. W. C. Dickinson (Scottish History Society, 3rd ser., 29: Edinburgh, 1937), pp. xi–xxx; RRS, ii. 47–51; A. Grant, ‘The Higher Nobility in Scotland and their Estates, c.1371–1424’, D.Phil. thesis (Oxford, 1975), 132–42.

Lordship and Society in Twelfth-Century Clydesdale

101

recorded when the baronies were amalgamated were essentially those of the two parishes;¹³ and Lesmahagow (see below). However, pre-1500 documents record hundreds of small properties within the Clydesdale baronies; most are identiﬁable nowadays, and virtually always lie within the equivalent parish.¹⁴ In general, therefore, it is safe to assume that the baronies coincided closely or even exactly with the parishes—unsurprisingly, since most of Clydesdale’s boundaries follow rivers, streams and watersheds. The barony–parish correspondence makes it straightforward to depict Clydesdale’s top-level landowning in c.1200. Map 1 develops Table 1’s bald list, categorizing the territorial units as follows: baronies held by ‘French’ (AngloNorman or Flemish) lords; baronies where the lords are uncertain but probably ‘French’; baronies certainly or possibly held by ‘native’ (Gaelic or Lothian English) lords; crown lands; and ecclesiastical property. All the mapped territories were held directly from the crown, except Crawford, which a ‘French’ baron held from a ‘native’ magnate, Swain son of Thor.¹⁵ The map’s immediate message is just how much of Clydesdale was possessed by ‘French’ barons in c.1200: certainly around 62 per cent, possibly as much as 68 per cent. The other major category of landowner was the Church, though with far less territory, only 22 per cent; the remaining 10 per cent was divided between crown lands and baronies probably held by ‘native’ lords.¹⁶ Many of the ‘French’ were Flemings brought in by Malcolm IV during the late 1150s. To reiterate Geoffrey Barrow’s well-known list,¹⁷ these were: Baldwin, sheriff of Lanark and likely leader of the Flemish inﬂux (given Biggar); his stepson John (Crawfordjohn); Lambin Asa (Lamington); his brother Robert (Roberton); Simon Lockhart (Symington); Wice (Wiston); Thancard (Thankerton and upper Cambusnethan); and William de Finemund (lower Cambusnethan). All except Finemund (and Thancard, partly) settled in southern Clydesdale, and so probably did the Douglases’ progenitor, who ‘was surely Flemish in origin’.¹⁸ Malcolm also gave large estates to two of David I’s followers: Bothwell to David Olifard (whose forebears were possibly Flemish); and Carnwath to William de Somerville.¹⁹ Thus, in terms of territory, Malcolm was responsible for just over half the ‘French’ settlement. The rest was largely or entirely William I’s doing. He granted Cadzow to his bastard, Robert of London (whose mother was ¹³ RRS, i, no. 305; RMS, i, no. 77. ¹⁴ This conclusion derives from detailed work on individual lands within baronies, part of my ongoing research project on pre-1500 Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire. ¹⁵ Newbattle Reg., no. 135; RRS, ii, no. 257. ¹⁶ Percentages are calculated from the individual areas given in Table 1. ¹⁷ e.g., Barrow, Kingdom, 257–9, 289–90. Only those holding directly from the crown are cited. ¹⁸ Ibid., 290. ¹⁹ For Olifard, Barrow, Anglo-Norman Era, 45. Barrow has suggested that Somerville ‘presumably’ got Carnwath from David I (ibid., 194); but since Carnwath probably belonged to Glasgow Cathedral under David (see below, p. 107), its grant is best attributed to Malcolm IV.

102 Table 1. Baronies and Parishes in pre-1300 Clydesdale Barony

Parish

Biggar

= Biggar

Blantyre

= Blantyre

Bothwell

= Bothwell

61.1m2 David Olifard c.1158 RRS, i, no. 305

Cadzowa

= Hamilton

22.3m2 Robert de London c.1195

Glasgow Reg., i, no. 49

11.5m2 William de Finemund c.1158

RRS, i, no. 131

17.8m2 James Douglas c.1320

RMS, i, no. 77; APS, i. 98

Cambusnethan

part of Cambusnethan

Carmichael

= Carmichael

Carmunnock

= Carmunnock

Carnwathb

(i) (ii) (iii)

Carnwath +Libberton +Quothquan

Size

First recorded lord

11.4m2 Baldwin de Biggar c.1154 6.3m2 Patrick Earl of Dunbar c.1240

5.5m2 Henry son of Anselm c.1182 60.8m2 William de Somerville c.1170

Reference Kelso Lib., i, no. 107 Cal. Papal Letters, xiii. 531–2

Paisley Reg., 105–6 Glasgow Reg., i, nos. 52–3

Covington

= Covington

Crawford

= Crawford

Crawfordjohn

= Crawfordjohn

41.3m2 John de Crawford c.1157

Kelso Lib., i, no. 107

Coulterc

= Culter

18.6m2 Richard Uvieth 1226

NAS, RH1/1/1: 3.8.1226

Dalziel

= Dalziel

Douglas

= Douglas

Drumsargardd

= Cambuslang

Dunsyree

= Dunsyre

Hartside Kilbridef

part of Wandel (i) (ii)

East Kilbride +Glassford

3.9m2 Thomas de Covington c.1188 107.6m2 William de Lindsay c.1188; of Swain son of Thor

4.8m2 ? Hugh de Dalziel 1288 53.6m2 William de Douglas c.1190 8.1m2 William de Murray of D. 1290 16.8m2 Fergus MacBard c.1180 4.7m2 William de Hartside 1225

RRS, ii, no. 260 Newbattle Reg., no. 135

ER, i. 39; APS, i. 99 Kelso Lib., ii, no. 454 Neville, Native Lordship 79 RRS, ii, no. 367 Glasgow Reg., i, no. 129

45.7m2 Roger de Valognes c.1186

Glasgow Reg., i, no. 55

Lamington

= Lamington

10.2m2 Lambin Asa c.1157

Kelso Lib., ii, no. 336

Machan

= Machan

11.0m2 William Comyn before 1193

RRS, ii, no. 367

Roberton

= Roberton

12.5m2 Robert brother of Lambin c.1157

Kelso Lib., ii, no. 336

103 Barony

Parish

Size

First recorded lord Reference

Stonehouse

= Stonehouse

Strathaven

= Strathaven

58.9m2 Robert de Biggar c.1200

Kelso Lib., i, nos. 181, 186

Symington

= Symington

5.5m2 Simon Lockhart c.1185

Kelso Lib., ii, nos. 335, 414

Thankerton

= Thankerton

4.2m2 Thancard c.1185

Kelso Lib., ii, no. 414

Walstong

(i) (ii)

= Wiston

Wiston Glasgow

(i)

Lesmahagow

Glasgow

(ii) (iii)

+Cadder +Carstairs

(iv)

+Govan

(v)

+part of Monkland +part of Wandel

(vi) (Newbattle)

Walston +Dolphinton

9.9m2 Geoffrey de Ross c.1270

12.4m2 William de Murray of Bothwell 1293 8.1m2 Wice de Wiston c.1157

Glasgow Reg., i, no. 44; RMS, i, no. 136; app. II, no. 904

Glasgow Reg., i, no. 239 Kelso Lib., ii, no. 336

21.4m2 Glasgow Cathedral David I Chrs., no. 15 c.1120 ’’ ’’ ’’ ’’ 22.0m2 15.5m2 Glasgow Cathedral Glasgow Reg., i, no. 26 1170 10.0m2 Glasgow Cathedral David I Chrs., no. 34 c.1135 ’’ ’’ ’’ ’’ 1.6m2 5.3m2

’’

’’

’’

’’

most of Monkland

47.5m2 Newbattle Abbey c.1162

RRS, i, nos. 19, 291

= Lesmahagow

64.9m2 Kelso Abbey 1144

David I Chrs., no. 130

2

(Arbroath)

part of Cambus- 14.8m nethan (Auchterheadmuir)

not a barony

Carluke

24.1m2 various tenants

OPS, i. 115–17

not a barony

Lanark

16.5m2

OPS, i. 117–23

not a barony

Pettinain

6.2m2 various tenants

OPS, i. 138–9

not a barony

Rutherglen

3.5m2 various tenants

OPS, i. 62–4

Thancard c.1160 / Arbroath Abbey c.1210 various tenants

RRS, i, no. 334 Arbroath Lib., i, no. 99

References are minimized; the relevant entries in OPS, i. should also be consulted. The = symbol denotes a close barony–parish correspondence. Italic denotes ecclesiastical estates and landlords. Size of baronies, in square miles, derived from Ordnance Gazetteer of Scotland, ed. F. H. Groome, 8 vols. (Edinburgh, 1882–5). NOTES: a Hamilton parish used to be called Cadzow. b Libberton and Quothquan as part of Carnwath: OPS, i. 136–7. c Richard Uvieth as lord of Coulter: at n. 33 below. d Cambuslang parish was also called Drumsargard. e Though Dunsyre is not recorded as a barony until 1475: RMS, ii, no. 1207. f Glassford as part of Kilbride: RMS, i, no. 490. g Dolphinton as part of Walston: RRS, vi, no. 217.

104

Alexander Grant N

(Cadder) GLASGOW

(Go van )

(DRUMPELLIER)

(R'G LE N)

DR UM SA RG AR D

BOTHWELL

CARMUNNOCK

E

R

DALZIEL

TY

N

A BL

RH

EA

DM

UIR

)

CAMBUSNETHAN

CADZOW (CARLUKE)

MACHAN

(Gla

DUNSYRE

E

ssfo

OUS

rd)

CARNWATH

(CARSTAIRS)

NEH

KILBRIDE

C (AU

E HT

(Dolphin

ton)

STO

(LANARK)

STRATHAVEN

WALSTON IN) TINA (PET

(Libberton)

N TO ING

LESMAHAGOW

V CO

CARMICHAEL

(Q uo thq ua BIGGAR n SYMINGTON ) THANKERTON

WISTON ROBERTON DOUGLAS

CO

UL TE

LAMINGTON

HARTSIDE

(WANDEL)

CRAWFORDJOHN

KEY Coinciding barony and parish boundaries Barony boundary within a parish Parish boundary within a barony MACHAN Barony (LANARK) Parish (or other land) not held as a separate barony (Libberton) Parish within a larger barony Barony held by 'French', from Malcolm IV's reign Barony held by 'French', from William I's reign or later Barony held by 'native' family Ecclesiastical property Territory not held baronially

Map 1. Clydesdale c.1200

CRAWFORD

R

Lordship and Society in Twelfth-Century Clydesdale

105

Anglo-Norman);²⁰ Kilbride to Roger de Valognes;²¹ and, probably, Strathaven to either Waltheof or Robert de Biggar (Baldwin’s son and grandson),²² Machan to William de Comyn,²³ and Carmunnock to Henry son of Anselm.²⁴ That accounts for all Clydesdale baronies known to have been in ‘French’ hands before 1200; but the other ones held in the thirteenth century by families of ‘French’ descent were probably granted by William I as well. By c.1200, therefore, Clydesdale was predominantly a land of ‘French’ local lordship; it is a remarkably clear-cut case of ‘Normanization’. Moreover, this was permanent change: the structure of baronial lordship and (allowing for female inheritance) many of the actual families survived until well into the ﬁfteenth century.²⁵ However, the timescale must be emphasized. Studies of Scotland’s Normanization generally lump David I, Malcolm IV and William I together, with David being renowned for introducing the ‘Normans’ into Scotland and making ‘feudal’ grants (especially of great lordships such as Annandale, Eskdale, and, of course, Renfrew). Clydesdale’s Normanization, however, was entirely the work of Malcolm and William. David’s only signiﬁcant recorded grants there were Govan and south-eastern Partick to Glasgow Cathedral, and Lesmahagow to Kelso Abbey.²⁶ It is impossible to prove he gave any part of Clydesdale to any ‘French’—so he did not initiate its Normanization.²⁷ In that case, what was the state of pre-Norman Clydesdale during the ﬁrst half of the twelfth century? Map 2 (p. 106) illustrates my proposed answer, which has three elements. The ﬁrst is probable and possible instances of ‘native’ local lordship: Drumpellier (most of Monkland parish), held by Gillepadraig mac Kerin before c.1162;²⁸ Dunsyre, held by Feargus Macbard in 1166×1193, and presumably by his forebears earlier;²⁹ Crawford, probably held by Thor son of Swain (David I’s sheriff of Lothian), the likely father of its chief lord in c.1185×1190;³⁰ Covington, held c.1188 by Thomas de Covington, a descendant of the Colbán from whom the territory was named sometime after c.1100; and Dolphinton (half Walston barony), no doubt held in the early century by the eponymous Dolﬁn.³¹ Also, in the thirteenth century Blantyre belonged to Earl Patrick of ²⁰ Barrow, Anglo-Norman Era, 100–2, 183–4. ²¹ A cadet of a family that entered Scotland under William I: ibid., 23–4. ²² First known lord of Strathaven, probably by 1200. There is no reason to think that it was held by his grandfather Baldwin under Malcolm IV. ²³ RRS, ii, nos. 367, 480; Kelso Lib., i, no. 109: settling Kelso’s dispute with William Comyn over the Machan–Lesmahagow boundary in c.1193, which probably arose soon after Comyn acquired Machan. ²⁴ Henry’s last documented appearance is in 1229×1232 (Kelso Lib., i, no. 280), so presumably he did not get Carmunnock before the beginning of William I’s reign. ²⁵ Grant, ‘Higher Nobility’, 159–66, 383–6. ²⁶ David I Chrs., nos. 34, 56, 130. ²⁷ Noted by Barrow, Kingdom, 289, but only in passing; generally he treats David I’s and Malcolm IV’s reigns together, as does Duncan, Making of the Kingdom, 135–9. ²⁸ RRS, i, no. 198. ²⁹ RRS, ii, no. 367. ³⁰ David I Chrs., 21, and nos. 70, 86–7, 116, 138, 151, 178, 216; RRS, i. 46. ³¹ Both Colbán and Dolﬁn are unidentiﬁable.

106

Alexander Grant N

(Cadder) PART ICK

GO VA N

GLASGOW

DRUMPELLIER

R’G

LE

N

(Dr

(Carmunnock)

BOTHWELL

um

sar

ga

rd)

E YR NT A BL

DALZIEL ?

CAMBUSNETHAN

CADZOW

(G KILBRIDE

MACHAN

las

(Carluke) DUNSYRE

sfo

rd)

CARNWATH

(Carstairs) se)

LANARK

hou

one

(St

?

in)

ina (Pett STRATHAVEN

(Libberton)

ON GT

LESMAHAGOW

VIN CO

CARMICHAEL

?

(Q uo thq ua n)

BIGGAR

(Symington)

(Thankerton)

ABERCARF (Wiston) (Roberton)

CO

(Lamington)

R.Clyde

(Douglas)

WANDEL

(Crawfordjohn)

KEY Boundaries of likely territorial units Later boundaries within likely territorial units MACHAN

Territorial unit, certain or probable

(Wiston)

Later parish CRAWFORD

Crown land, certain or very probable Crown land, likely Glasgow Cathedral land, certain or very probable Glasgow Cathedral land, likely 'Native' land, certain or possible ?

Land where no suggestion can be made

Map 2. Clydesdale c.1140

DOLP HINTO N

WALSTON

UL TE

R

Lordship and Society in Twelfth-Century Clydesdale

107

Dunbar,³² and Coulter to Richard Uvieth;³³ it is not impossible that they had been possessed by their respective ancestors (Earl Cospatric and Uvieth the White,³⁴ an important Lothian lord) in the early twelfth century. Those seven territories, however, are the only apparent instances of top-level ‘native’ landowning under David I—so it was hardly extensive, accounting for only 23 per cent of Clydesdale, over half of which is the huge upland territory of Crawford. Secondly, there was one major ‘old’ landowner in Clydesdale: Glasgow Cathedral. According to the inquest into its possessions carried out in the early 1120s for David (as ruler of Strathclyde and Lothian, before he became king),³⁵ Glasgow had broad territories, which apparently fall into three groups: lands round Glasgow itself; lands in upper Clydesdale; and lands elsewhere in southern Scotland.³⁶ The second, most signiﬁcant, group consists of ﬁve places: ‘Mecheyn’ (presumably Machan); ‘Abercarf ’ (Wiston, where the Garf Water joins the Clyde); ‘Quendal’ (Wandel); ‘Planmichel’ (probably Carmichael); and ‘Chefcaruenuat’ (probably Carnwath). These were baronies after c.1160, but when Glasgow had them they seem mostly to have been considerably larger than the later units. ‘Abercarf ’ apparently stretched beyond Wiston to include the subsequent baronies of Crawfordjohn, Roberton, Thankerton and Symington.³⁷ Carnwath probably contained the parishes of Libberton, Carnwath and Quothquan;³⁸ and also, perhaps, Carstairs.³⁹ With Wandel, Glasgow eventually had only half the parish; but originally it presumably possessed the whole, plus what was later Lamington.⁴⁰ As for Carmichael, judging by the probable extent of ‘Abercarf ’, it is not unlikely that the episcopal land extended up the Douglas Water to include Douglas itself.⁴¹ Only at Machan (apparently part of the royal estate of Cadzow) does Glasgow’s land seem the same as the later barony. If my suggestions are valid, then Glasgow had a swathe ³² Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland: Papal Letters, ed. W. H. Bliss et al., 14 vols. (London, 1893–1960), xiii. 531–2. ³³ National Archives of Scotland, Edinburgh, MS Register House Transcripts, RH1/1/1, s.d. 3.8.1226; Historical Manuscripts Commission, Sixth Report, 690, no. 2 (‘McJoch’ is Uvieth); David I Chrs., 21. ³⁴ Ibid., 21, and nos. 18, 33–4, 36, 147, 177, 183. ³⁵ Ibid., no. 15; and, in general, R. Oram, David I: The King who made Scotland (Stroud, 2004), ch. 4. ³⁶ I follow Barrow’s identiﬁcations: David I Chrs., 60–1. ³⁷ Kelso Lib., ii, nos. 335–6, 338, 414. ³⁸ Glasgow Reg., i, no. 53; OPS, i. 125, 135–7. Libberton was originally the mother church. ³⁹ That would explain how Carstairs belonged to Glasgow from before 1170, yet was neither mentioned in the inquest nor subsequently granted to the cathedral: ibid., i. 123–5; Glasgow Reg., i, no. 26. ⁴⁰ I. B. Cowan, The Parishes of Medieval Scotland (Scottish Record Society: 93: Edinburgh, 1967), 81, 127. ⁴¹ Note that in 1161×1180 Cultershogle (now Corramore) in Lesmahagow was said to lie between Currock and Douglas, rather than (correctly in terms of parishes) Currock and Carmichael: Kelso Lib., i, no. 115.

108

Alexander Grant

of land across southern Clydesdale that covered about 250 square miles (28 per cent of the entire sheriffdom) and was as big as the Stewarts’ lordship of Renfrew—plus another 45 square miles near Glasgow itself. But, thirdly, the greatest Clydesdale landowner under David I was David himself. The list of his demesnes starts with the burgh of Lanark, centre of an area consisting of Lanark, Carluke and Pettinain parishes.⁴² Opposite Lanark across the Clyde is Lesmahagow, royal before it went to Kelso Abbey in 1144; and further north lies the shire, or multiple estate,⁴³ of Cadzow (now Hamilton), again a long-established royal property.⁴⁴ West of Cadzow is another shire, Kilbride, not granted out until William I’s reign;⁴⁵ while the neighbouring Strathaven and Stonehouse were possibly crown property too.⁴⁶ In northern Clydesdale, there was another centre at Rutherglen, covering not only its small parish⁴⁷ but also perhaps the neighbouring Carmunnock and Drumsargard (or Cambuslang) parishes, which had no ‘feudal’ lords before the late twelfth century.⁴⁸ Further north are Govan and Partick, royal estates until David I gave them to Glasgow.⁴⁹ Finally, east of the Clyde are Bothwell and Cambusnethan: the initial grants did not name them speciﬁcally (simply conveying lands between rivers), indicating that they were not established units but parts of a larger area of crown land.⁵⁰ It is possible, therefore, that the royal demesnes constituted a vast block of territory amounting to over 360 square miles: 41 per cent of Clydesdale, and half as big again as Renfrew. The above is merely a plausible scenario. But the much less likely alternative is to envisage many more native lords and their wholesale displacement—which did not happen elsewhere under David I and his successors.⁵¹ Certainly David

⁴² OPS, i. 115–23, 137–40. ⁴³ Barrow, Kingdom, 25–56. ⁴⁴ OPS, i. 105–6; The Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, ed. G. Burnett et al., 23 vols. (Edinburgh, 1878–1908), i. 40, 46; Glasgow Reg., i, no. 49; Regesta Regum Scottorum, V. The Acts of Robert I, ed. A. A. M. Duncan (Edinburgh, 1988), no. 494. ⁴⁵ W. Fraser, Memorials of the Maxwells of Pollok, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1863), i, no. 10. ⁴⁶ No lords are known in Strathaven until c.1200. Stonehouse was a barony in 1259 (APS, i. 99), but no lords are recorded until later. ⁴⁷ OPS, i. 62–3. ⁴⁸ For Carmunnock, see n. 24 above. The ﬁrst recorded lord of Drumsargard occurs in c.1284 (Neville, Native Lordship, 79); there are no grounds for accepting the unreferenced statement in OPS, i. 61–2 that it originally belonged to the Olifards. ⁴⁹ i.e., all Govan and south-eastern Partick: S. T. Driscoll, Govan from Cradle to Grave (Glasgow, 2004), 14–23. North-western Partick stayed in crown hands until the 1160s: RRS, i, no. 184. ⁵⁰ Bothwell: ‘the land between the North and South Calder Waters’, given to David Olifard in exchange for property in Huntingdonshire, which further suggests Malcolm IV’s grant was from crown resources. Cambusnethan (upper): ‘the whole land between Auchter and Calder [Waters]’, i.e. the upper part of the parish, subsequently Auchterheadmuir. No initial charter of lower Cambusnethan (the barony) exists; but later it owed heavy grain renders to the crown (as with Cadzow), implying old royal demesne: RMS, i, no. 79; Regesta Regum Scottorum, vi. The Acts of David II, ed. B. Webster (Edinburgh, 1982), no. 418. ⁵¹ Incoming ‘French’ were generally slotted in among existing native lords.

Lordship and Society in Twelfth-Century Clydesdale

109

and Bishop John⁵² dominated the area in terms of local lordship as well as overall authority. For David, styled ‘prince of the Cumbrian kingdom’ in the Glasgow Inquest,⁵³ both the authority and the local lordship presumably stemmed ultimately from the old kingdom of Strathclyde; his broad demesnes were surely what his Strathclyde predecessors had had.⁵⁴ Furthermore, with maximum dimensions of about 25 miles by 20, they closely resemble the old royal territory of ‘Cumbraland’ (focused on Carlisle)—the core of what David I would have regarded as ‘southern Cumbria’.⁵⁵ Irrespective of whether ‘northern’ and ‘southern’ Cumbria were effectively united before his reign, they seem to have had similar geo-political structures. After David I’s death, Malcolm IV kept most of this vast area of royal demesne in his own possession. On the other hand, he settled almost all his Flemish incomers on what was probably Glasgow Cathedral’s property—hence his deathbed prayer for absolution over ‘the lands which I gave to my barons and knights . . . from which . . . the cathedral had been accustomed to receive rents and cain’.⁵⁶ Despite that prayer, he had probably been backed by the bishop, Herbert.⁵⁷ Malcolm’s charter including ‘Welsh’ in its address, with which this essay began, was a signiﬁcant concession establishing episcopal rights throughout the diocese over everyone including sheriffs (in Lanarkshire, Baldwin the Fleming),⁵⁸ and looks like a quid pro quo for using the cathedral’s properties to fortify the strategically vital route through Clydesdale against attacks from Galloway and the Western Isles;⁵⁹ that the bishop co-operated is suggested by a contemporary poem celebrating Glasgow’s deliverance in 1164 from Somairle (Somerled), king of the Isles, thanks to Herbert’s prayers to St Kentigern.⁶⁰ Thus Malcolm did not seize Glasgow’s property ‘high-handedly’;⁶¹ nevertheless, ⁵² Bishop of Glasgow, 1114×18–1147; once David’s chaplain, and appointed by him to the bishopric. ⁵³ David I Chrs., no. 15; Barrow, Kingdom, 205. ⁵⁴ Note that (except for the two grants to the Church) David did not alienate any of it, not even a share of caín from Clydesdale—unlike the caín from Strathgryfe, Cunningham, Kyle and Carrick, one-tenth of which went to Glasgow each year, except when he was there in person to consume it (David I Chrs., no. 57); presumably he usually consumed the Clydesdale caín. ⁵⁵ C. Phythian-Adams, Land of the Cumbrians (Aldershot, 1996), 10, 38, 129, 166–70. ⁵⁶ RRS, i, no. 265; A. A. M. Duncan, The Kingship of the Scots, 842–1292 (Edinburgh, 2002), 74; the only exceptions are Bothwell and Cambusnethan. After Malcolm’s reign, Glasgow had only Carstairs and half of Wandel in southern Clydesdale: less than 21 square miles, compared with its likely 250 under David I. ⁵⁷ Bishop of Glasgow, 1147–64; previously ﬁrst abbot of Kelso; another of David I’s protégés. ⁵⁸ Broun, ‘Welsh Identity’, 142–3. ⁵⁹ Mottes are known in virtually all the lands granted by Malcolm: C. J. Tabraham, ‘Norman Settlement in Upper Clydesdale’, Transactions of the Dumfries and Galloway Natural History and Archaeological Society, 3rd ser., 53 (1977–8), 114–28. ⁶⁰ Early Sources of Scottish History, ed. A. O. Anderson, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1922), ii. 256–8; The Triumph Tree: Scotland’s Earliest Poetry, ed. T. O. Clancy (Edinburgh, 1998), 212–15; Broun, ‘Welsh Identity’, 142–3, 171. ⁶¹ As Barrow, Kingdom, 203. But Bishop Herbert died before Malcolm IV; so the absolution was sought from the next bishop, who may not have been so co-operative.

110

Alexander Grant

one of the two great blocks of territory was divided up. Then in the later phase of Clydesdale’s Normanization under William I—whose kingship had a much more northerly focus, especially after 1174⁶²—the same fate befell the other great block, with the granting out of most of the royal demesne. Hence, during the second half of the twelfth century, the introduction of a new ‘French’ landowning class into Clydesdale was accompanied by considerable structural change. But for a fuller appreciation of what was going on, we must return to the pre-1150s situation. If the small baronies of the later period were subdivisions of previous local units, then for the earlier twelfth century a pattern of fairly uniform ‘multiple estates’ (each perhaps covering around 40–75 square miles) can be envisaged. Elsewhere in Scotland these were usually shires or, with royal properties north of the Forth, thanages run by thanes.⁶³ Thanages are unknown in the south-west, however; and though Clydesdale had three shires,⁶⁴ those are generally rare throughout the cross-Border Cumbrian region. One explanation might be different Cumbrian terminology, caer for shire and maer for thane;⁶⁵ but compared to Cumberland the caer place-names do not ﬁt Clydesdale’s multiple estates so well,⁶⁶ and the latter seem less structured (though at least one, Carnwath, had an old popular ‘cuthill’ court).⁶⁷ Also, signiﬁcantly, maers and other high-status local ﬁgures are highly elusive in Clydesdale. In the Glasgow Inquest, for instance, all ﬁve jurors should be associated primarily with Lothian, Tynedale and Cumberland, and of the nine ‘native’ witnesses at least six certainly or probably came from elsewhere (the others are unidentiﬁable).⁶⁸ Similarly, while later evidence points to some ‘native’ landowners in Clydesdale (see above), they were not numerous, and, again, mostly outsiders. Indeed, apart from Gillepadraig mac Kerin of Drumpellier,⁶⁹ only two high-status Clydesdale ⁶² RRS, ii. 5, 28–9. ⁶³ Barrow, Kingdom, 30–46; A. Grant, ‘Thanes and Thanages, from the Eleventh to the Fourteenth Centuries’, in A. Grant and K. J. Stringer (eds.), Medieval Scotland: Crown, Lordship and Community (Edinburgh, 1993), 39–81. ⁶⁴ Cadzow and Kilbride: nn. 44–5 above. Machan: APS, iv. 634; OPS, i. 107–8. ⁶⁵ Phythian-Adams, Land of the Cumbrians, 83–6, 146–7; Barrow, Kingdom, 30, 54–6. ⁶⁶ The only examples in W. J. Watson, The History of the Celtic Place-Names of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1926), are Carmyle (Monkland), Carmaben (Dolphinton), Carmichael and perhaps Cadder; Carnwath, Carstairs and Carmunnock do not have the element caer: ibid., 223, 367, 386. Cf. Phythian-Adams, Land of the Cumbrians, 84, 146. ‘Eccles’ names, also probably denoting shires, are represented only by Carluke (‘Eglismalesoch’; was it also a caer?): Barrow, Kingdom, 30. ⁶⁷ At Couthalley (where courts were still held in the 16th century): Court Book of Carnwath, 13, 67; Barrow, Scotland and its Neighbours, ch. 11. ⁶⁸ Jurors: David I Chrs., 60–1; Early Scottish Charters prior to  1153, ed. A. C. Lawrie (Glasgow, 1905), nos. 20, 153. Witnesses (Cospatric brother of Dolﬁn; Waltheof his brother; Cospatric son of Uhtred; Maccus son of Undweyn; Uhtred son of Scot; Wib’ the hunter): David I Chrs., 20–1, and nos. 14, 36. ⁶⁹ RRS, i, no. 198.

Lordship and Society in Twelfth-Century Clydesdale

111

‘natives’ seem to be documented: Dyfnwal son of Owain (a perambulator and witness for Malcolm IV and Walter the Steward, lord of Renfrew) and his likely father Owain son of Dyfnwal.⁷⁰ They may have descended from old Strathclyde royalty, which used those names, but they are not associated with any land and so are unidentiﬁable. Otherwise, the local ‘native’ landowners and ofﬁcers (especially thanes) who appear abundantly in the ‘royal’ territory in Lothian and eastern Scotland north of the Forth seem conspicuous by their absence;⁷¹ and though David I had sheriffs of Berwick, Lothian, Roxburgh, Stirling and Perth, he did not in Clydesdale.⁷² Hence, if Clydesdale’s extensive royal and episcopal lands were run by high-status agents, these are more likely to have been ‘carpet-bagger’ outsiders than important local ﬁgures. Alternatively, the leading inhabitants of each territory may simply have run it themselves collectively, as has been suggested with respect to ‘thengs and drengs’ in northern England and Lothian.⁷³ An impression of relative emptiness is also given by place-name evidence (though a modern academic study is needed). W. J. Watson found no more than ﬁfty names ‘which might be claimed as British’ on the one-inch map of Lanarkshire, and only a hundred Gaelic ones.⁷⁴ The former include rivers and many parishes; the latter are mostly lesser places, presumably indicating subsequent Gaelicization of the indigenous population. Yet such Gaelicization appears haphazard and far from intense: in W. H. F. Nicolaisen’s general analysis, two of his three signiﬁcant Gaelic elements, baile (farm) and cill (church), scarcely appear in Lanarkshire, and while the third, achadh (ﬁeld), is more common, its distribution is irregular, being bunched towards the northern boundary with the more Gaelic Dumbartonshire, and also anomalously in Lesmahagow.⁷⁵ Thorough analysis, indeed, would probably demonstrate that the majority of Clydesdale place-names were Scots-English, especially those ending in ‘-ton’ (most of which are probably post-1100)—suggesting a new level of settlement at a relatively late date. These impressions appear to be supported by a late twelfth-century view of the ‘Cumbrian’ diocese’s past history that prefaces the text of the Glasgow Inquest at ⁷⁰ Ibid.; Paisley Reg., 6–7, 12, 49, 112. ⁷¹ That conclusion derives from texts in David I Chrs., RRS, vols. i–ii, Lawrie, Charters, and further 12th-century items in printed cartularies and other collections. See also Grant, ‘Thanes and Thanages’. ⁷² The Sheriffs of Scotland: An Interim List to c.1306, ed. N. H. Reid and G. W. S. Barrow (St Andrews, 2002). ⁷³ Barrow, Kingdom, 10–23; G. W. S. Barrow, ‘Northern English Society in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries’, Northern History, 4 (1969), 10–11, 18; and see below, pp. 120–1. ⁷⁴ Watson, Celtic Place-Names of Scotland, 197; also 194–8, 201–5, 345–52, 356, 362, 367, 385–6, 400. ⁷⁵ W. H. F. Nicolaisen, Scottish Place-names, 2nd edn (Edinburgh, 2001), 159–75, esp. maps 11–13. The important Brythonic/Welsh settlement element, tref, is also very scarce: ibid., 215. The point about achadh is my own; see below, p. 114.

112

Alexander Grant

the beginning of the cathedral’s cartulary.⁷⁶ It starts with Glasgow’s foundation by Kentigern and the beneﬁts that ensued. But, subsequently, various rebellions broke out on all sides, and not only brought destruction to the Church and its property, but also ravaged the entire kingdom and forced its inhabitants into exile. Thus, with everything good having been driven out, after long intervals of time diverse hordes from diverse peoples poured in from diverse directions, and settled in the deserted kingdom. But coming as they did from disparate races, and speaking dissimilar languages, they lived in different ways, not readily agreeing amongst themselves, but observing their own customs rather than trusting the doctrine of faith. The Lord, who wishes nobody to perish by force, has deigned to visit these unfortunate inhabitants of a blighted land—living their lives without reason and after the manner of animals—with his mercy.

Accordingly, God appointed David to re-establish good rule over Cumbria. Though this is all vague and tendentious, the original inhabitants’ exile recalls the (dubious) tale of Strathclyde Britons being exiled to Gwynedd,⁷⁷ while the inﬂux of disparate peoples brings to mind the ‘multi-cultural’ society evidenced by tenth-century hogback tombs.⁷⁸ Signiﬁcantly, the preface’s basic story tallies with the most recent account, in which eleventh-century Strathclyde suffered ‘an on-going struggle for dominance between the rulers of Northumbria, the kings of Scots, and the Gall-Gaídil, the Gaelic-speakers perceived to be of Norse origin whose name is memorialised in ‘‘Galloway’’ ’, so that ‘for about a century [before c.1150] Strathclyde had ceased to be a kingdom in the usual sense’.⁷⁹ Thus, while the twelfth- and twenty-ﬁrst-century analyses do not give a sense of permanent depopulation, their message is one of major upheaval, producing ﬂuid, disjointed local settlement and a serious disruption of lordship—especially, perhaps, following efforts to restore Strathclyde’s kingship against Macbeth in 1054 and its ﬁnal disappearance under Malcolm III.⁸⁰ That might largely explain the absence of high-status Clydesdale ﬁgures under David I. Irrespective of whether the Glasgow exile story is accepted, the main casualties of this long-term political upheaval would probably have been Clydesdale’s ‘Welsh’, at least at the higher social levels. More generally, the early twelfthcentury situation resulting from previous upheavals has a signiﬁcant bearing on the ‘native’ versus ‘Norman’ issue. In twelfth-century Clydesdale, ‘native’ ⁷⁶ Glasgow Reg., i. 3–4. The text may be partly commenting on the loss of cathedral property under Malcolm IV, and so might be later than the mid-century date suggested by Barrow, Kingdom, 203; the cartulary manuscript is early 13th-century at latest. As a whole, it tallies strikingly with Dauvit Broun’s arguments in ‘Welsh Identity’, though it is not discussed there. ⁷⁷ A. P. Smyth, Warlords and Holy Men: Scotland  80–1000 (London, 1984), 217–18; from Anderson, Early Sources, i. 368 (which, unfortunately, uses an unreliable text). ⁷⁸ B. E. Crawford, The Govan Hogbacks and the Multi-Cultural Society of Tenth-Century Scotland (Glasgow, 2005). ⁷⁹ Broun, ‘Welsh Identity’, 136, 140. See also Duncan, Kingship of the Scots, ch. 3; Oram, Lordship of Galloway, 22–39. ⁸⁰ Broun, ‘Welsh Identity’, 136–9 (also noting possible ‘ravaging . . . by Northumbrians and Dubliners’ in 1030); Duncan, Kingship of the Scots, 38–41.

Lordship and Society in Twelfth-Century Clydesdale

113

lordship must have been far weaker than in the rest of Scotland—which is surely why high-status locals seem so conspicuously absent. Hence, when under David’s successors the vast royal and episcopal territory was at the crown’s disposal, Malcolm IV and William I had a free hand to settle their ‘French’ followers within it—probably more systematically and intensely than anywhere else in Scotland’s ‘royal’ territory. My focus now shifts to one of Clydesdale’s individual units. Lesmahagow, a substantial parish and barony (about 65 square miles) in central Clydesdale, ﬁrst appears in two charters of 1144. In one, David I gives Kelso Abbey ‘the church of Lesmahagow and the whole of Lesmahagow, by its right bounds and with all its appurtenances’, in order to establish a priory; and adds that Bishop John of Glasgow has freed the church from all episcopal superiority. In the other, the bishop ‘concedes’ the gift of ‘the church and the parish of Lesmahagow’.⁸¹ Clearly, an existing territorial unit was being granted, which (since David’s charter conﬁrmed the sanctuary delineated by four crosses round St Machut’s church) presumably centred on an old religious site.⁸² But Lesmahagow is not mentioned in the Glasgow Inquest; so, despite the sanctuary, it was royal, not ecclesiastical, property before 1144. Hence ‘parish’ in the episcopal charter must have meant the parochial cure of souls. Although that could then have had broader geographical implications, in this case it would have applied just to the immediate territory, since Kelso had no rights over the adjoining estates.⁸³ And—as the information surviving about boundaries within medieval Lesmahagow shows—here parish and barony deﬁnitely coincided. As for ‘baronial’ powers, these were unusually extensive, because from David I’s reign Kelso possessed the equivalent of later ‘regality’ jurisdiction (covering major crimes, normally reserved to the crown) over all its lands.⁸⁴ But Lesmahagow was not merely an outlying part of Kelso’s possessions. References to land ‘in the barony of Lesmahagow’ date from 1294 and 1273×1296, and it was one of eight Clydesdale baronies mentioned in 1259.⁸⁵ Thus (unlike the other ecclesiastical properties) Lesmahagow was a barony in its own right, presumably run by the prior and his ofﬁcers on Kelso’s behalf; and this must date from 1144, since no special grant bestowing baronial status on Lesmahagow is subsequently recorded. ⁸¹ David I Chrs., no. 130; Kelso Lib., i, no. 180. ⁸² For sanctuaries, H. L. MacQueen, ‘Girth: Society and the Law of Sanctuary in Scotland’, in J. W. Cairns and O. F. Robinson (eds.), Critical Studies in Ancient Law, Comparative Law and Legal History (Oxford, 2001), 333–52. ⁸³ For 12th-century meanings of parochia, I. B. Cowan, The Medieval Church in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1995), 1–2; and see the entries for the adjoining parishes in OPS, i. ⁸⁴ Scottish ‘regality’ powers were basically like those of English palatinates. None of Kelso’s charters speciﬁes them, but David I gave Holyrood Abbey the jurisdiction possessed by St Andrews Cathedral, Dunfermline Abbey and Kelso Abbey; and the Dunfermline charter reserved crown jurisdiction (‘iusticia regali’) only if the abbot had been negligent about justice in his own court: David I Chrs., nos. 147, 152. Hence, Kelso (and the others) had the equivalent of regality. ⁸⁵ Kelso Lib., i, nos. 192, 198; APS, i. 99.

114

Alexander Grant

Lesmahagow, however, also had an older judicial function, through its sanctuary. Sanctuaries were rare in medieval Scotland, and were mostly located at ancient religious sites, though they always required royal sanction.⁸⁶ Lesmahagow was the only sanctuary in the south-west.⁸⁷ But in Cumbria there was one at Wetheral (near Carlisle), beside which is Scotby, a Scottish royal possession since before 1100; and Wetheral church is dedicated to St Constantine—who is also commemorated at Govan. Since Constantine (Causantín) was a Scottish royal name, Charles Phythian-Adams has suggested that Scotby, Wetheral with its sanctuary, and the Govan dedication, together reﬂect an assertion of Scottish power over Strathclyde and Cumbria, initially perhaps by the expansionist Causantín mac Aeda (c.900–44).⁸⁸ The Govan connection is signiﬁcant, because it and Lesmahagow—the two main places in Clydesdale that David I gave to the Church—were probably Strathclyde’s major religious centres (apart from Glasgow). But Lesmahagow’s dedication is to the Brythonic St Machut, after whom St-Malo is named. Watson, however, states that ‘Lesmahagu’ (the earliest form) and the personal name Gillemohagu derive from ‘Mahagu’, representing Mo-Fhégu—‘my Féchin’, a Gaelic saint.⁸⁹ The obvious explanation is an adaptation of the Brythonic form of Machut by Gaelic-speakers who were taking over Lesmahagow. Now St Féchin appears in another sanctuary name, Torphichen (Féchin’s hillock?),⁹⁰ and so may have sanctuary connotations. Thus the Gaelic form of Lesmahagow (Lios Mo-Fhégu, ‘my Féchin’s enclosure’) possibly indicates the simultaneous Gaelicization of the territory and the establishment of the sanctuary—perhaps about the same time as similar events at Wetheral. In that case, Lesmahagow’s Gaelicization might have been earlier and more systematic than elsewhere in Clydesdale. This is certainly what place-names indicate. As already noted, names beginning with forms of ‘Auchen-’ (achadh, ﬁeld) are fairly common in Lanarkshire; 28 are recorded on the 1:25,000 map. Of these, no fewer than 12 are in Lesmahagow;⁹¹ seven are on Lanarkshire’s northern fringe; and the other nine are scattered thinly across the sheriffdom.⁹² The Lesmahagow achadh names demonstrate much denser Gaelicization than elsewhere, and since they originally denoted ﬁelds rather than settlements, they may well relate to agriculture organized from the church and sanctuary. Whatever ⁸⁶ MacQueen, ‘Girth’, 334–42. ⁸⁷ Except for Whithorn in Galloway, recorded in 1509 (ibid., 339). ⁸⁸ Phythian-Adams, Land of the Cumbrians, 116–19. ⁸⁹ Watson, Celtic Place-Names, 196–7. Gillemohagu means servant of Mo-Fhégu. ⁹⁰ MacQueen, ‘Girth’, 338. ⁹¹ Auchenbegg, Auchenheath, Auchingilloch, Auchinleck (= Afﬂeck), Auchlochan, Auchmeddan, Auchnotroch, Auchren, Auchrobert, Auchtool, Auchtygemmell, and Auchtygirnal. As Auchrobert and Auchtygemmell indicate, these are not necessarily pure Gaelic; but they all testify to the intensity of Lesmahagow’s Gaelicization. The cluster shows distinctly in Nicolaisen, Scottish Place-Names, map 12. ⁹² Two in Douglas parish, and one apiece in Crawfordjohn, Carnwath, Lanark, Glassford, East Kilbride, Bothwell (now Shotts), and Blantyre.

Lordship and Society in Twelfth-Century Clydesdale

115

the case, in this respect, Lesmahagow is obviously untypical of Clydesdale in general. Its chief interest for historians, however, comes from the amount of evidence surviving about internal landowning there. By 1200 Lesmahagow contained at least ten properties held of Kelso Abbey by local lairds,⁹³ and (as Ruth Richens has shown)⁹⁴ the boundaries of six are speciﬁed in sufﬁcient detail for them to be traced on the ground: see Table 2 and Map 3 (pp. 116–18). Hence, landownership within twelfth-century Lesmahagow can be delineated fairly precisely. In all, these properties covered approximately 28 square miles (43 per cent of the total)⁹⁵ of relatively low-lying territory, predominantly east of the River Nethan and in ﬁve cases descending to the Clyde. That was presumably better for agriculture, whereas almost all the upland territory in the western half of the barony was retained by Kelso Abbey, and would have been used chieﬂy for the priory’s livestock. However, Kelso had land east of the Nethan, too, which was high and rough in the area called Mossminion, but included a better strip running from Boreland down to the Nethan near the priory. ‘Bor(e)land’ place-names generally denote land used to supply food for the lord’s own table⁹⁶—surely the case at Lesmahagow. The information about individual properties summarized in Table 2 demonstrates considerable uniformity in size (mostly between 1.9 and 3.6 square miles), tenure (invariably feu-ferme), and ‘feu duties’⁹⁷ (mostly 11/2 –21/2 merks a year). Only Poneil was much bigger, presumably because it was essentially moorland and moss with little cultivable land;⁹⁸ while the smallest properties, Little Draffan and ‘part of Glenan’, had been portions of larger units. One exception is the land of Waltheof son of ‘Boydinus’: initially, apparently, one-eighth of Currock, granted for 6s. 8d . feu-duty (around the going rate); then redeﬁned as one-third of Auchinleck and regranted for just 2s. 3d.⁹⁹ The apparently favourable treatment might

⁹³ The later Scots ‘laird’ may be anachronistic, but it is the easiest way to describe the subordinate landlords. ⁹⁴ R. Richens, ‘Ancient Land Divisions in the Parish of Lesmahagow’, Scottish Geographical Magazine, 108 (1992), 184–9; but my reading of the charters has indicated a few emendations to her suggested boundaries. ⁹⁵ Worked out by plotting each property on the 1:50,000 Ordnance Survey map, counting the whole kilometre squares, adding estimates for the partial ones, and converting the results into square miles. ⁹⁶ A. J. L. Winchester, ‘The Distribution and Signiﬁcance of ‘‘bordland’’ in Medieval Britain’, Agricultural History Review, 34 (1986), 129–39. ⁹⁷ The modern Scottish term for the annual payments due under feu-ferme tenure. ⁹⁸ Richens, ‘Ancient Land Divisions’, 188. This is reﬂected in its ‘standard’ 2-merks feu-duty. ⁹⁹ That is the best way to interpret Kelso Lib., i, nos. 111 and 115, plus no. 112’s evidence that the rest of Currock owed 21/2 merks duty. That is ﬁve times the duty for one-eighth of Currock; but if the latter was also one-third of Auchinleck (making the whole of Auchinleck correspond to three-eighths of the original Currock), the ratios would be correct. Also, the boundaries of the rest of Currock border with Greenrig (in Auchinleck)—leaving no room for a separate one-eighth of Currock. Waltheof ’s two charters also gave him Cultershogle (now Corramore), between Currock and Douglas, but as an ‘incrementum’, which presumably did not affect the feu-duty. Auchinleck is now Afﬂeck.

Table 2. Twelfth-Century Subinfeudation in Lesmahagow Property

Date of grant

Description

Size (mile2 )

Feu duty

Recipient/ ﬁrst known laird

Later lairds

Reference: Kelso Lib.

Draffan

1154×60

the land of Draffan and ‘Dardarach’, by the following boundaries . . .

3.6m2

33s.4d.

Lambin Asa (of Lamington?)

James de Draffan; Adam (son of James) de D., 1208×18; Sir Hugh Crawford & wife Alicia, 1271

i, nos. 102, 103, 104, 107; ii, no. 474

Poneil/ Folkerston

1154×60

our land upon Douglas, by the correct boundaries . . .

8.7m2

26s.8d.

Theobald the Fleming

Fulcard 1161×80; Richard son of ?Folker, 1208×18; William, son & heir of Adam de Folkerton, 1269

i, nos. 106, 107, 109

Ardoch

?1154×60

unknown (no surviving charter)

c.2.3m2

?

Eustace de Ardoch, before 1161×80

William de Ardoch (son of Eustace); Robert French of Lamington, son of Henry, son of William de A., 1266

i, nos. 109, 115, 190

Fincurrock (West)

1161×80

a certain part of the land of Fincurrock, by the boundaries between him and his brother Saludes, etc.

2.9m2

20s.

Gillemohagu

Gillemor mac Gilleconel, 1208×18; Gillemor son of William Gylconel, 1266–9

i, nos. 108, 114, 115, 187, 189

Fincurrock (East)

?1161×80; charter, 1208×18

a certain part of land in Fincurrock, by the following boundaries . . . (1208×18)

2.3m2

21s.4d.

Saludes 1161×80 (charter to his son Gillebrigte)

Gillebrigte son of Saludes, 1180×1203; ? Reginald de Currock, 1273×96

i, nos. 104, 109, 114, 198

Property

Date of grant

Description

Size (mile2 )

Feu duty

Recipient/ ﬁrst known laird

Later lairds

Reference: Kelso Lib.

1/3 of Auchinleck (orig. 1/8 of Currock) (rest ? = Greenrig)

1161×80

the third part of Auchinleck (originally, an eighth of Currock); plus land called Cultershogle, between Douglas and Currock

c.0.6m2 2s.3d. (1/3 Waltheof son of (whole = Auchinleck; ‘Boydinus’ (? = Baldwin de Biggar) c.2.0m2 ) originally 6s. 8d., for 1/8 Currock)

Patrick de Auchinleck 1311; William son of Philip de Greenrig, 1266; Peter de Greenrig, 1266–9

i, nos. 115, 195, 200, 209

Little Draffan

1161×80

the toun of ‘Parva Draffan’ with its right boundaries . . .

0.6m2

6s.8d.

Robert son of Werenbald (of Kilmaurs)

(none recorded: ? Cunninghams)

i, nos. 105, 283, 284

Currock

?1161×80; charter, 1180×1203

the land of Currock that his father held of us, by these boundaries . . .

2.9m2

33s.4d.

Peter, dean of Stobo, ?1161×80 (charter to his son David)

David de Currock 1208×18; ? John de Bannatyne, 1311

i, nos. 112, 113; ii, no. 523

Dowan

1180×1203

the toun of Dowan, including land which Osbert held in it; plus the 2 hills as far as the boundary with Ardoch

c.1.9m2

20s.

Constantine son of Gillebrigte, priest of Lesmahagow

Daniel and Robert de Dowan & wives, 1240×9; Adam de Dowan, son of Daniel, 1294; Adam de Dowan junior, 1301

i, nos. 104, 192, 193, 194

Glenan (part)

1180×1203

a certain piece of land in Glenan, by these boundaries . . .

c.0.6m2

10s.

Ralph, sergeant of Lesmahagow

(none recorded)

i, no. 110

118

Alexander Grant

N (MACHAN)

DRAFFAN

E)

? D. L. t s. ofd

r l be ba Ro eren W W F ES

HO

NE

O ST

EAST FINCURROCK IN T CU lle RR Saludes m oh OC ag K u

(

th eo AUC fs . o HIN G fB RE L oy EC EN K di RI nu G s

Gi

h

lp Ra

N)

GL

W al

N

A EN

de

US

ly rC

R iv e r N e th

a

ive R

Lambin Asa n

(B

OR

EL

AN

AV E

D)

AT H

LESMAHAGOW

CU

RR OC

K

Pe t

er

de

an

(MO

CUL.

SS

DOWAN

ION

St

)

Constantine

TR

of

ob

MIN

o

) EL (C

AR

M

IC

HA

(S

ARDOCH Eustace de Ardoch

eo

Th

W ate

Poneil AS) UGL (DO

KEY Boundary of Leshmahagow (land) Internal boundary (land): certain Internal boundary (land): probable Land over 250 metres DRAFFAN

Subinfeudated property

Lambin Asa

First known laird

(BORELAND)

Other places

L.D. ?

Little Draffan (probable)

CUL.

Cultershogle

Map 3. Twelfth-Century Lesmahagow

the

ng

mi

Fle

gla

ld ba

r

er Riv

N

PO

Dou

an

th Ne

sW ate

r

ON RT

KE

OL

/F EIL

Lordship and Society in Twelfth-Century Clydesdale

119

be explained by Waltheof ’s possible identiﬁcation with Waltheof son of Baldwin de Biggar, the ﬁrst sheriff of Lanark. If so, Waltheof would have been one of four Flemings who received land in Lesmahagow: the others were Theobald ‘the Fleming’ (Poneil); Lambin Asa, lord of nearby Lamington (Draffan); and Robert son of Werenbald, lord of Kilmaurs in Ayrshire, progenitor of the Cunninghams (Little Draffan).¹⁰⁰ Meanwhile, two properties were given to likely Anglo-Normans: a Eustace (Ardoch);¹⁰¹ and Ralph, sergeant of Lesmahagow (part of Glenan). Thus half or more of the subordinate lairds in later twelfth-century Lesmahagow count as ‘French’ incomers, brought in (as with top-level ‘French’ lords elsewhere) during the reigns of Malcolm IV and William I.¹⁰² On the other hand, four of the ten internal properties were held not by ‘French’ but by ‘natives’: the brothers ‘Saludes’¹⁰³ and Gillemohagu (East and West Fincurrock); Constantine (Causantín?), son of the local priest Gillebrigte¹⁰⁴ (Dowan); and Peter, dean of Christianity of Stobo and Clydesdale.¹⁰⁵ Also, Waltheof son of ‘Boydinus’ held his third of Auchinleck ‘as anyone else has the toun of Greenrig’ (apparently the rest of the territory); the ‘anyone else’ was probably a ‘native’ forebear of the William and Peter de Greenrig who shared it in 1266.¹⁰⁶ Within Lesmahagow, therefore, Normanization was far less overwhelming than at the top level of Clydesdale lordship. Moreover, only with the grant to Theobald the Fleming of ‘our land upon Douglas’ (later Poneil or Folkerston) was a completely new property created in Lesmahagow, out of moorland and moss; otherwise, previously existing units were granted wholly or in part.There is no reason to suppose that those units were not under cultivation well before the priory’s foundation in 1144. The cluster of achadh place-names, indeed, indicates several centuries of arable farming in parts of Lesmahagow. In a twelfth-century context, however, a more important point is that in the boundary clauses of the earliest charters Brythonic and Gaelic ¹⁰⁰ Barrow, Anglo-Norman Era, 72, n.; The Scots Peerage, ed. J. Balfour Paul, 8 vols. (Edinburgh, 1904–14), iv. 222–3. ¹⁰¹ Eustace’s great-grandson was Robert ‘French’: Kelso Lib., i, no. 190. ¹⁰² The grants to Theobald and Lambin Asa were made by Abbot Arnald (1147–60), and presumably date from Malcolm IV’s reign. That might apply also to Eustace de Ardoch’s grant, while Waltheof ’s and Robert’s date from the years 1161–80, and Ralph’s from the years 1180–1203. ¹⁰³ ‘Saludes’, ‘Saludis’, and ‘Sabides’ in the Kelso documents. I can ﬁnd no explanation of this name, but it does not seem ‘French’, Flemish, English or Scandinavian—and his brother’s name is certainly Gaelic. No grant to Saludes exists, but he is referred to as a landowner with a court in the charter to his brother Gillemohagu dated 1161×1180: Kelso Lib., i, no. 114. ¹⁰⁴ ‘Gilberti’, ibid., i, no 104; but originally surely a form of Gillebrigte. ¹⁰⁵ For Peter, see D. E. R. Watt and A. L. Murray, Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae medii aevi ad annum 1638 (Scottish Record Society, new ser., 25: Edinburgh, 2003), 234–5. Early deans of Christianity in Glasgow diocese were commonly ‘natives’ rather than ‘French’. No charter to Peter exists, but his son David was ‘received’ as heir to Peter’s lands: Kelso Lib., i, no. 112. ¹⁰⁶ Ibid., i, nos. 115, 200.

120

Alexander Grant

place-names were outweighed by Scots-English-Scandinavian ones, namely Smallbeck, Herdlaw, Thievesford, Crossford, the moss, and the long ‘faugh’ (furrow).¹⁰⁷ Those names (and similar ones in later charters) show that before the mid-twelfth century there had been another major, ‘post-Gaelic’, inﬂux of settlers from Lothian, Northumbria or ‘south’ Cumbria—perhaps the kind of inﬂux that the writer of the preface to the Glasgow Inquest bemoaned. Therefore the idea that in the later twelfth century the Flemings’ Clydesdale estates were ‘settlement[s] planted into former wasteland’, into which ‘a considerable workforce of new farmers’ was introduced,¹⁰⁸ must be rejected with regard to Lesmahagow. Here, the new ‘French’ lairds may have improved farming methods and raised the intensity of farming; but, after what was no doubt a signiﬁcant increase in stability after the later eleventh century, that process would already have been under way among the existing population. Presumably that population, like its neighbours in the shires of Cadzow, Machan and Kilbride, inhabited an old multiple estate, in which the later twelfth-century subordinate properties no doubt represent, albeit not necessarily exactly, the touns that would have rendered tribute at the estate’s centre.¹⁰⁹ Therefore the map of later twelfth-century Lesmahagow (Map 3) should also give a good impression of the pre-1144 situation—except that the southern ‘land upon Douglas’, subsequently Poneil or Folkerston, was apparently not a separate toun before it was given to Theobald the Fleming. Accordingly, the division into good and poor land would have been even more marked: before the 1150s subordinate touns would have covered about 30 per cent of the entire territory, including much of the better land; while the remaining 70 per cent, mostly higher, rougher, land, would have been more sparsely populated and used chieﬂy for common grazing. Such a pattern would make Lesmahagow correspond interestingly with the multiple estates of far north-western England. These, too, were often centred on ancient ecclesiastical sites; and they tended to split into lowland and upland sections, the former subdivided into vills which were mostly subinfeudated in the twelfth century, the latter consisting of rough moorland grazing which was mainly kept as demesne by the twelfth-century ‘Norman’ lords.¹¹⁰ Thus, although the multiple estate was pan-British, Lesmahagow could be regarded as belonging to a Cumbrian sub-type. At ﬁrst sight, therefore, twelfth-century Lesmahagow exhibits much continuity. This impression is enhanced by the cases of the brothers Saludes and Gillmohagu, and Constantine son of Gillebrigte the priest. The brothers’ lands amounted to ¹⁰⁷ Kelso Lib., i, nos. 103, 107; Barrow, Anglo-Norman Era, 198–9. ¹⁰⁸ L. Toorians, ‘Twelfth-century Flemish Settlements in Scotland’, in G. G. Simpson (ed.), Scotland and the Low Countries, 1124–1994 (East Linton, 1996), 9–10. ¹⁰⁹ Barrow, Kingdom, 23–46. ¹¹⁰ A. J. L. Winchester, ‘The Multiple Estate: A Framework for the Evolution of Settlement in Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian Cumbria’, in J. R. Baldwin and I. D. Whyte (eds.), The Scandinavians in Cumbria (Edinburgh, 1985), 89, 92–5.

Lordship and Society in Twelfth-Century Clydesdale

121

over 3,000 acres of top-quality land,¹¹¹ and they must have been long-standing prominent local ﬁgures; Gillemohagu’s importance is further indicated by his name (‘servant of [St] Mahagu’), and by the likelihood that he was the ‘Gilmalagon mac Kelli’ who witnessed Theobald the Fleming’s charter along with Baldwin de Biggar and John de Crawford.¹¹² Since the brothers’ lands were contiguous, they doubtless shared a larger whole previously possessed by their father (probably ‘Kelli’)—surely Lesmahagow’s leading inhabitant in the pre-Kelso era. Gillebrigte the priest would also have been prominent then, of course, particularly because of the sanctuary; so the grant of Dowan (more good land) to his son Constantine probably represents the continuation, albeit laicized, of a hereditary family of local priests. Saludes, Gillemohagu and Constantine, who got the same minor jurisdictional rights as the ‘French’ lairds of Draffan and Ardoch,¹¹³ presumably typify the men who ran Lesmahagow during the eleventh and early twelfth centuries—and who, in south-eastern Scotland and northern England, would have been called ‘thengs and drengs’. However, the continuity must not be exaggerated. Before the 1150s Lesmahagow’s leading men are unlikely to have held their touns with the formal security and hereditary primogeniture denoted by the phrase ‘in feu and heritage’ included in most of the charters; nor, probably, would they have been under an active resident lord with the equivalent of a barony court. Also, after the 1150s the actual territories and their boundaries were permanently established; the renders owed became ﬁxed annual sums of money instead of payments in kind; the new lairds did not owe menial services;¹¹⁴ and they were given jurisdiction over offences committed by their men. These points demonstrate signiﬁcant change with respect to Lesmahagow’s internal lordship. But all the later twelfth-century lairds were not in the same boat. The ‘feu and heritage’ phrase is consistently omitted from charters relating to the lands of Saludes, Gillemohagu and Constantine.¹¹⁵ That this was signiﬁcant is shown by references to merchet, the right to exact dues from the daughters of subordinate men, which was widely and unpopularly imposed in England during the later twelfth century.¹¹⁶ With Saludes’s and Constantine’s lands, the lairds were granted merchet from the daughters of their men, but, strikingly, owed merchet for their own daughters; Gillemohagu and David son of the dean of Stobo also got merchet from their men’s daughters, but their own daughters were not mentioned; Waltheof son of ‘Boydinus’ was explicitly freed from ¹¹¹ Richens, ‘Ancient Land Divisions’, 186. ¹¹² Kelso Lib., i, no. 107. It is clear from the MS text that the ‘la’ in ‘Gilmalagon’ could easily be a miscopying by the cartulary scribe of ‘h’, giving ‘Gilmahagon’. ¹¹³ Ibid. i, nos. 104, 114. ¹¹⁴ Except Ralph the sergeant, who did owe various ‘services and customs’: ibid., i, no. 110. ¹¹⁵ Ibid., i, nos. 104, 108–9, 114. ¹¹⁶ R. Faith, The English Peasantry and the Growth of Lordship (Leicester, 1997), 257–65; E. Searle, ‘Seigneurial Control of Women’s Marriage: The Antecedents and Functions of Merchet in England’, P&P, 82 (1979), 3–43.

122

Alexander Grant

merchet for his daughters; and the grants of the other territories (all to ‘French’ incomers) do not refer to it at all.¹¹⁷ Since ‘French’ lairds would have been no less privileged than ‘natives’, the implication is that the former’s tenure in feu and heritage automatically entitled them to merchet from their men’s daughters and immunity for their own, whereas the local ‘natives’ Saludes and Constantine and their descendants presumably had a lower status;¹¹⁸ merchet, indeed, commonly indicated servility. In late twelfth-century Lesmahagow, therefore, local ‘native’ landholders were not necessarily on a par with the French ‘incomers’—which has a signiﬁcant bearing on the general ‘feudalization’ issue. Moreover, if Saludes’s and Constantine’s female descendants owed merchet despite belonging to landholding families, then the same must have applied to every lesser family. This widespread imposition of merchet on the indigenous inhabitants of Lesmahagow reﬂects a vital change in its social stratiﬁcation: in the later twelfth century, all those without charters of lands would have counted as unfree peasants, irrespective of their families’ previous status. The corollary can be seen in a royal precept of 1195×1207: William I ordered that whenever ‘neyfs’ or ‘fugitives’ from Lesmahagow were found (outside the royal demesnes), they should be returned immediately to the prior or his sergeant.¹¹⁹ Runaway serfs were, indeed, the most striking consequence of the later twelfth century’s social changes, in Lesmahagow and throughout the rest of the kingdom. That returns us to the wider points raised at the outset. How far does this ‘county’ study illuminate the issue of change within lordship and society in twelfth-century Scotland? Clydesdale is certainly a striking instance of Normanization that helps to balance the recent emphasis on surviving ‘native’ lordship. But it might also be untypical, since it appears to have had remarkably little secular ‘native’ lordship, and so was open to a particularly high level of ‘French’ settlement. Perhaps, therefore, it should be regarded as sui generis. Yet by the later twelfth century Clydesdale was a fairly typical area of what can be considered ‘royal’ territory (in terms of the two-part structure outlined at the beginning of this chapter). Since previously it had no network of established crown agents, the introduction of ‘French’ barons may be seen as rectifying this,¹²⁰ bringing Clydesdale into line with other parts of the ‘royal’ territory. That involved a major restructuring of local lordship, but was also part of the general development of royal power that had been under way for well over a century

¹¹⁷ Kelso Lib., i, nos. 102, 104–5, 107, 109–13. ¹¹⁸ Gillemohagu, however, was in the same situtation over merchet as David son of Peter (who held in feu and heritage), so he had probably managed to avoid the obligation. ¹¹⁹ RRS, ii, no. 387; nativus (neyf ) and fugitivus were standard Scottish terms for serfs. ¹²⁰ At that time ‘baron’ essentially meant the man—including agent—of a lord, especially the king: Court Book of Carnwath, introduction, pp. xiv–xvi.

Lordship and Society in Twelfth-Century Clydesdale

123

before the ‘French’ appeared in Scotland. The Normanization of Clydesdale could illustrate continuity as well as change. Also, although its local baronies appear small scale compared with the provincial lordships given to David I’s leading ‘French’ followers, that is misleading. It was a region in its own right, where the crown (and sheriff) was the equivalent of provincial lord. In other words, Clydesdale was a royal lordship—which more than matched the non-royal earldoms and lordships for size and signiﬁcance, and within which most local barons were distinctly greater ﬁgures than the earldoms’ and lordships’ subordinate landowners. The scale of landlordship in Clydesdale was higher, not lower, than in the earldoms and lordships—again reﬂecting the long-term trend towards intensiﬁcation of royal power. It should be stressed, however, that that trend did not have an ethnic basis. Many early sheriffs were ‘natives’, as were the thanes who continued to run most of the thanages;¹²¹ while plenty of ‘native’ landowners existed alongside ‘French’ incomers. The latter point applies even to the particularly Normanized top level of Clydesdale landownership, and it can also be found at a lower level within Lesmahagow; but there, as we have seen, some ‘native’ landlords did not have the same status as the ‘French’. In general, the recent argument that ‘by the thirteenth century . . . ethnic background was largely irrelevant in the pursuit of lordship’¹²² appears valid for the twelfth as well—though, as the case of Lesmahagow demonstrates, the ‘native–French’ dichotomy does not disappear altogether. On the other hand, lordship and society never remain static; change always occurs. That was certainly the case in Clydesdale. The apparent free-for-all warfare of the eras before the late eleventh century must have disrupted its local power structures profoundly; whereas from the later twelfth century its Normanized lordship, at all levels, was much tighter, more regularized, and more stable—sufﬁciently so for its structures and most of its families to survive the Wars of Independence. And in this respect Clydesdale was far from unique: the changes reﬂect what was going on throughout Scotland from David I’s reign onwards—initially within the ‘royal’ territory and its sheriffdoms, but also, during the thirteenth century, within the old ‘native’ earldoms and lordships.¹²³ Presumably ‘native’ earls and lords saw the beneﬁts; or perhaps they simply followed the current fashions in lordship. Whether or not those current fashions were ‘feudal’ raises a huge question that cannot be tackled here. Yet the kind of lordship that emerged was clearly similar to that which had developed in contemporary England and France, and most of its technical characteristics, ¹²¹ Sheriffs of Scotland, passim; Grant, ‘Thanes and Thanages’, 49–55. ¹²² M. H. Hammond, ‘Hostarii Regis Scotie: The Durward Family in the Thirteenth Century’, in Boardman and Ross (eds.), Exercise of Power, 118–37, at 118; see also H. L. MacQueen, ‘Survival and Success: The Kennedys of Dunure’, ibid., 67–94. ¹²³ Cf. Neville, Native Lordship, 9–10.

124

Alexander Grant

especially what is coming to be known as ‘charter lordship’, were introduced by the twelfth-century kings and their ‘French’ followers. And the main inﬂuence for such change surely came from England—which, of course, was one of the fundamental points in Rees Davies’s analyses of British history. Finally, what of Scotland’s ‘Welsh’? Despite those mentions in royal charter addresses, they cannot have been an identiﬁable entity in twelfth-century Clydesdale;¹²⁴ the Welsh identity promoted by Glasgow’s bishops is distinctly artiﬁcial. Yet, though the Strathclyde ‘Welsh’ of previous centuries had been overrun, they can hardly have been obliterated. Instead, presumably, they mixed with the incomers: the ‘Scots’, ‘English’, ‘Galwegians’, and eventually ‘French’ of royal charters. In that case, inserting ‘Welsh’ into the racial address can be interpreted slightly differently, as asserting that they counted among the peoples who collectively were subject to the king of Scots. Signiﬁcantly, the poem about the death of Somairle of the Isles portrayed Kentigern as a Scottish saint protecting Glasgow against enemies from Galloway, Argyll and Alba—in a ‘precocious attempt’ to extend Scottishness to regions south of the Forth.¹²⁵ Strathclyde’s separate identity was being merged into the whole kingdom’s—reﬂecting the growing integration that was vital to Scotland’s medieval success. Clydesdale was at the forefront of that trend, at a time when the racial address was becoming obsolete. Therefore, since this chapter began with Malcolm IV addressing ‘French, English, Scots, Welsh and Galwegians’, it must end with what became the norm, ‘[Rex] omnibus probis hominibus tocius terre sue’—in which the ‘Welsh’, along with the other races, were subsumed among all the good men of the king’s land.¹²⁶ ¹²⁴ Though note the intriguing parish/barony name Walston (earliest form Walyston). ¹²⁵ Broun, ‘Welsh Identity’, 171–2; and n. 60 above for the poem. ¹²⁶ My warmest thanks for their advice to Keith Stringer, Dauvit Broun, Ewan Johnson, Angus Winchester, Alison Grant, and—for all his long-term encouragement, especially his consoling remark that everything we write ﬁghts us every bit of the way until it is at last dragged kicking and screaming onto the page—Rees Davies.

9 Lordship and Liberties in Ireland and Wales, c.1170–c.1360 Robin Frame

The primary subject of this chapter is lordship and liberties in Ireland, or, to be more precise, lordships on a county or provincial scale in the hands of lay magnates.¹ Wales ﬁgures in the title for two reasons: the close parallels and equally marked differences between the two countries; and the existence of Rees Davies’s magisterial studies of the Welsh March, which offer so much by way of comparison, contrast, and conceptual challenge.² For Ireland there is as yet nothing remotely similar. Most discussions of this period have been couched primarily in legal and constitutional terms.³ A similar emphasis is apparent in what attempts there have been to consider Wales and Ireland together—an activity that began as early as the reign of Edward I, when a memorandum, almost certainly written for Geoffrey de Geneville, lord of Ludlow and Trim, reﬂected on the right of lords of liberties to have dealings with Welsh and Irish leaders who were against the king’s peace.⁴ These institutional themes are important, and discussion of them is by no means exhausted. I propose to look at some of them again before turning to other topics: thus the essay

¹ The essay largely ignores the franchises held by their sub-tenants, together with ecclesiastical and urban liberties; and it touches only lightly on the earldom of Ulster, which was remote from the main centres of royal power in Ireland and formed part of the distinctive maritime orbit that also included Argyll and the Western Isles, Galloway, Cumbria, and Man. ² Davies, Lordship, and id., Conquest, chs. 4, 10. Other works are mentioned below. ³ e.g., A. J. Otway-Ruthven, ‘Anglo-Irish Shire Government in the Thirteenth Century’, IHS, 5 (1946), 1–28, at 5–8, and ead., ‘The Medieval County of Kildare’, IHS, 11 (1959), 181–99; G. J. Hand, English Law in Ireland 1290–1324 (Cambridge, 1967), ch. 6. Adrian Empey’s important Ph.D. thesis on the Butler lordship, which from 1328 included the liberty of Tipperary, is unpublished: C. A. Empey, ‘The Butler Lordship in Ireland, 1185–1515’ (University of Dublin, 1970). See, e.g., his ‘The Norman Period, 1185–1500’, in W. Nolan and T. G. McGrath (eds.), Tipperary: History and Society (Dublin, 1985), 71–91; and his entries on ‘liberties’ and ‘palatinates’ in S. J. Connolly (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Irish History, new edn. (Oxford, 2002). ⁴ Calendar of the Gormanston Register, ed. J. Mills and M. J. McEnery (Dublin, 1916), 9, 181. Cf. Davies, Lordship, 220, and references in n. 7, below.

126

Robin Frame

moves from liberties to ‘lordship’, a capacious term that Davies made his own.⁵ Wales and Ireland had much in common. Both had undergone piecemeal occupations, led by aristocrats. The incompleteness of the conquests meant that lordships were zones of protracted interplay—by no means wholly hostile—between Anglo-French and Celtic society. In both countries, lordships were often large and often compact.⁶ In both, lords exercised wide powers of jurisdiction. In both, such powers gained closer deﬁnition during the thirteenth century through interaction with the crown and its agents. There was also considerable overlap in personnel: de Clare, Marshal, de Lacy, Bigod, de Valence, de Geneville, and Mortimer, for instance, at various times held large, enfranchised lordships in Wales and Ireland. Some of the differences come into focus when we consider the chronologies of conquest. The timing of the initial incursions, separated by the century 1070–1170, meant that they occurred in contrasting political and legal environments. Lordships in Wales, we might say, took shape during ‘the ﬁrst century of English feudalism’, whereas those in Ireland were formed during the second.⁷ From this springs a paradox: the authority of lords in Ireland, despite their greater distance from England, was more hedged about by royal restrictions than was the case in Wales. Nor were the limitations merely a matter of legal theories and empty words. For most of the thirteenth century the English position in eastern and southern Ireland was more stable than it could be in Wales in the age of the two Llywelyns. During the 1220s William Marshal II used Leinster and its manpower in his efforts to restore his position in south Wales.⁸ Later, Henry III and Edward I could rely upon the Dublin government to assemble and transport men, money, timber, and foodstuffs for their Welsh and Scottish campaigns.⁹ After 1282, however, the relative positions slowly changed. The royal conquest of north Wales stabilized the Marches. In Ireland, on the other hand, deteriorating security in the settled heartlands, together with the economic catastrophes of the fourteenth century, saw a reversion ⁵ For a recent restatement of its value see Rees Davies, ‘The Medieval State: The Tyranny of a Concept?’, Journal of Historical Sociology, 16 (2003), 280–300. ⁶ For these features see R. Frame, Ireland and Britain 1170–1450 (London, 1998), 191–220, at 192–205. ⁷ See A. J. Otway-Ruthven, ‘The Constitutional Position of the Great Lordships of South Wales’, TRHS, 5th ser., 8 (1958), 1–20, at 1, 13–14; and R. R. Davies, ‘The Law of the March’, WHR, 5 (1970–1), 1–30, at 27–8. On feudal society in Ireland B. Smith, ‘Tenure and Locality in North Leinster in the Early Thirteenth Century’, in T. Barry, R. Frame, and K. Simms (eds.), Colony and Frontier in Medieval Ireland: Essays Presented to J. F. Lydon (London, 1995), 29–40. ⁸ Brut y Tywysogyon; or, The Chronicle of the Princes, Red Book of Hergest Version, ed. T. Jones (Cardiff, 1955), 222–5 (1223); J. E. Lloyd, A History of Wales from the Earliest Times to the Edwardian Conquest, 2 vols. (London, 1911), i. 661. Cf. AWR, no. 246, for support from Ireland in 1220. ⁹ J. F. Lydon, in NHI, ii. 195–7.

Lordship and Liberties in Ireland and Wales

127

towards pastoralism, extended kinship, localized tribute-warfare, and ‘lordship over men’.¹⁰ Any discussion of liberties, in the sense of the immunities from royal jurisdiction claimed by lords, raises the question of their origins, or imagined origins. Writing in 1979, Rees Davies challenged aspects of the classic argument put forward by J. G. Edwards,¹¹ that the Welsh Marchers inherited their special powers from their local antecessores, the Welsh kings, and that this was the basis of later Marcher claims to regal authority, which included control of war and peace and the right to one-third of booty taken in war. Davies suggested that the early Marcher lordships are better viewed as military captaincies than as constitutional entities, and that they had much in common with the castleries of Norman England, and even more with contemporary lordships in France. Their distinctiveness, and the deﬁnition of their powers as exceptionally exalted, came about later, as they managed to escape being pulverized by the advance of royal law and administration in late twelfth- and thirteenth-century England. Lords conﬁrmed their immunity from routine royal jurisdiction. At the same time, they borrowed the new procedures appearing in the king’s courts;¹² indeed, in the March, these were imported with a freedom unknown in English franchises.¹³ The burgeoning royal records from King John’s time onwards make such developments more visible; and the documentary habit itself, of course, promoted clariﬁcation.¹⁴ If this approach seems to ‘normalize’ the early history of the March, Davies did not permit us to forget its distinctive features. Claims by Marchers to unimpeded regal jurisdiction might be qualiﬁed in practice in the time of Henry III and Edward I, but the fact remained that each lordship was discrete and had its own mixture of law. There was considerable absorption of Welsh people and Welsh customs. Even after 1284 the Marcher courts preserved proﬁtable features of Welsh law that were defunct in the Principality of Wales and not always attractive to the Welsh themselves. It followed that a multitude of ofﬁces in the March were available to Welshmen.¹⁵ Marcher liberties, one might say, covered most things a Marcher lord might wish to do within his own lordship. Behind the law of the March as it came to be understood during the thirteenth century lay more than one hundred years of relatively unfettered development. In ¹⁰ Cf. Davies, Lordship, ch. 6, ‘Lordship of Men and of Land’, esp. 130–1. ¹¹ ‘The Normans and the Welsh March’, PBA, 42 (1956), 155–77. ¹² ‘Kings, Lords and Liberties in the March of Wales, 1066–1272’, TRHS, 5th ser., 29 (1979), 41–61. Cf. H. Cam, ‘The Evolution of the Medieval English Franchise’, in her Law-ﬁnders and Law-makers in Medieval England (London, 1962), 22–43. ¹³ e.g., J. Scammell, ‘The Origins and Limitations of the Liberty of Durham’, EHR, 81 (1966), 449–73. ¹⁴ e.g., Davies, Domination, 94–6. ¹⁵ id., Lordship, chs. 7, 11; id., ‘The Twilight of Welsh Law, 1284–1536’, History, 51 (1966), 143–64; and id., ‘The Survival of the Bloodfeud in Medieval Wales’, ibid., 54 (1969), 338–57.

128

Robin Frame

Ireland, by contrast, English lordships were of very recent formation when John came to the throne, leaving us with just one generation of scantily documented history to speculate about. Several historians have touched upon the question of the relationship of these lordships to the Irish past, particularly as regards their geographical boundaries.¹⁶ But it is normally assumed that the powers—or at least the formal powers—of lords in the thirteenth century owed little or nothing to those exercised by their native predecessors. Meath is the only great liberty with a surviving charter from Henry II.¹⁷ Henry conﬁrmed that Hugh de Lacy, who had gone with him to Ireland in 1171, was to hold Meath of him for the service of ﬁfty knights. Two phrases hint at the character of Hugh’s authority. Henry airily conceded Meath with ‘all liberties and free customs that I have or am entitled to have there’. Whatever this meant, it was hardly designed to restrict Hugh’s lordship. As yet there was no established group of royal ofﬁcials to meddle, and indeed de Lacy himself was left to act as Henry’s constable at Dublin. The second phrase granted Meath ‘as fully as Murchad Ó Máelsechlainn, or anybody else before or after him, held it’. (Murchad, who had died in 1153, was the last effective native ruler of Meath.) This clause may indeed seem to invite us to regard Murchad as Hugh’s legal antecessor. But such a reading of Henry’s intentions is implausible. The English position in Ireland, unlike that of William the Conqueror in England, was not based on inheritance. Also, the Ó Máelsechlainn kingship had been a fragile affair, constantly intruded into and dismembered by other dynasties.¹⁸ The clause may have been no more than a licence for de Lacy to occupy an extensive geographical space, which he went on to deﬁne by force of arms.¹⁹ There is, however, another possibility, to which I shall return: that the clause was intended to convey to Hugh the authority Ó Máelsechlainn was believed to have held over the Irish.²⁰ At ﬁrst glance, the case for continuity in Leinster seems stronger. Leinster came into the possession of Strongbow (Richard ﬁtz Gilbert de Clare), who had allied with Diarmait MacMurchada, its king, married his daughter, campaigned alongside him in 1170–1, and gained acceptance by some of the Irish as his heir.²¹ There was also more to inherit: Marie Therese Flanagan has mapped Diarmait’s known residences, his patronage of reformed religious houses, the sub-kings in whose affairs he interfered, and the location of the grants he made ¹⁶ e.g., M. T. Flanagan, ‘Strategies of Lordship in Pre-Norman and Post-Norman Leinster’, Anglo-Norman Studies, 20 (1998), 107–26; H. Walton, ‘The English in Connacht, 1171–1333’, Ph.D. thesis (University of Dublin, 1980), 83–105. ¹⁷ Gormanston Register, 177. ¹⁸ F. J. Byrne, in NHI, ii. 19–21; D. Ó Corráin, Ireland before the Normans (Dublin, 1972), 158–71. ¹⁹ R. Frame, The Political Development of the British Isles 1100–1400, rev. edn. (Oxford, 1995), 69–70. ²⁰ A. J. Otway-Ruthven, A History of Medieval Ireland (London, 1968), 181. ²¹ M. T. Flanagan, Irish Society, Anglo-Norman Settlers, Angevin Kingship: Interactions in Ireland in the Late Twelfth Century (Oxford, 1989), chs. 3, 4.

Lordship and Liberties in Ireland and Wales

129

to the English knights who served him.²² But Strongbow’s career as his fatherin-law’s successor was brief. Only three months after Diarmait’s death in May 1171, he went to England and submitted his gains to Henry II. His status was thereby transformed. In Ireland he emerged with a huge lordship, but one held from the king for the heavy service of one hundred knights. Moreover Leinster was territorially mutilated. Henry appropriated the towns of Dublin and (for a time) Wexford with their hinterlands, areas that had been vital to Diarmait’s projection of his power within Ireland and beyond. It seems unlikely, therefore, that Henry granted Leinster to Strongbow ‘as Diarmait MacMurchada held it’. In portraying the new provincial lords of Ireland as ﬁrmly under the authority of the Angevin kings, I do not intend to play down the importance of action on the ground, directed by the lords themselves. Hugh de Lacy’s task was to seize, organize, and settle a large strategic area. This meant removing or subjecting Irish leaders, subduing and exploiting the rural population, together with castle-building and the parcelling out of territory to members of his circle and the religious houses he favoured.²³ It is true that a similar balance (or tension) between royal patronage and occasional intervention, on the one hand, and local war and diplomacy, on the other, had been characteristic of Wales under the Norman kings.²⁴ There were, however, differences between the situations in the two countries. One was the existence in Ireland of grants imposing speciﬁc levels of knight service and making royal lordship explicit.²⁵ Another was the rapidity with which Henry II asserted his authority over the process of conquest, and the extent to which the royal stake in Ireland grew, particularly after the Council of Oxford (1177), and John’s visit as lord of Ireland in 1185. John’s agents showed themselves capable not just of exploiting Leinster and Meath during, and after, the minorities of the heirs of Strongbow and de Lacy, but of making extensive new enfeoffments in Leinster. William Marshal and Walter de Lacy seem to have made good their successions only through the backing of King Richard.²⁶ In Ireland, as in Wales, memories of a distant past survived. In 1366 a jury empanelled to report on the circumstances of the forfeiture of the earl of Kildare’s liberty in 1345 recalled ‘Diarmait MacMurchada, once king of all Leinster’, who had been succeeded by Strongbow, the Marshals, and (in Kildare) the de Vescys.²⁷ But there was no implication that the earl’s title had rested on ²² ‘Strategies of Lordship’, 107–26, map at 108. ²³ R. Bartlett, ‘Colonial Aristocracies in the High Middle Ages’, in R. Bartlett and A. MacKay (eds.), Medieval Frontier Societies (Oxford, 1989), 23–47, at 31–41. ²⁴ R. R. Davies, ‘King Henry I and Wales’, in H. Mayr-Harting and R.I. Moore (eds.), Studies in Medieval History Presented to R. H. C. Davis (London, 1985), 132–47. ²⁵ A. J. Otway-Ruthven, ‘Knight Service in Ireland’, JRSAI, 89 (1959), 1–15, at 1–3, 13–15; J. C. Holt, ‘The Introduction of Knight Service in England’, Anglo-Norman Studies, 6 (1983), 89–106, at 105–6. ²⁶ Flanagan, Irish Society, 133–5, 281–3. ²⁷ PRO, C47/10/22, no. 17; partly published in Documents on the Affairs of Ireland before the King’s Council, ed. G. O. Sayles (Dublin, 1979), 219.

130

Robin Frame

anything other than royal charters recreating the liberty in 1316–17. Nor was conquest a promising alternative basis for franchisal claims. In Wales Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester, might assert that he held his lordship of Glamorgan and Morgannwg ‘by his own conquest and that of his ancestors’;²⁸ such bombastic statements were not part of the stock-in-trade of magnates in Ireland. When in 1298 the prior of St Patrick’s at Down claimed to have held extensive liberties from ‘the time of the conquest of Ireland without interruption’, by the grant of ‘John de Courcy conquestor Ultonie’, he played straight into the hands of John of Bridgwater, pleading for Edward I. Bridgwater portrayed de Courcy as having arrogantly claimed to hold Ulster ‘free from the jurisdiction of the lord king and outside his allegiance’, a stance that led King John ‘to take all Ulster to himself and have his will with it’. The prior’s claim, too, was mere insolence, based on the fact that Down was remote from Dublin. The court reduced his pretended franchises sharply.²⁹ In general, lords in Ireland were more circumspect, defending their rights in the same terms as critics attacked them: by minute, sometimes creative, interpretation of their charters—an art of which Geoffrey de Geneville, who held the Trim half of Meath from 1252 to 1307, was a master.³⁰ John’s reign highlights the contrast between Wales and Ireland. Magna Carta of 1215 (C. 56) famously decreed that disputes over lands in the March of Wales should be settled by the law of the March, conﬁrming the growing acceptance of that law as a known body of custom, applying within a distinct region.³¹ Yet it was John, during his visit to Ireland in 1210, who articulated the quite different principle that English law (leges Anglicanas), and not some variant custom, should apply there—a ruling that recognized and reinforced a legal migration that was already well advanced;³² and the 1216 reissue of ²⁸ ‘De suo et antecessorum suorum conquestu’: The Welsh Assize Roll 1277–1284, ed. J. C. Davies (Cardiff, 1940), 33. ²⁹ G. Mac Niocaill, ‘Cartae Dunenses XII–XIII céad’, Seanchas Ardmhacha, 5 (1970), 418–28, at 425–6. Cf. the curtailment under Edward I of liberties in Munster, which seem, in any case, to have involved criminal jurisdiction rather than the land pleas that were the real mark of high franchisal jurisdiction in England: K. Nicholls, ‘The development of lordship in County Cork, 1300–1600’, in P. O Flanagan and C. G. Buttimer (eds.), Cork: History and Society (Dublin, 1993), 157–211, at 159–60. There is an important discussion in id., ‘Anglo-French Ireland and After’, Peritia, 1 (1982), 370–403, at 376–7. ³⁰ Hand, English Law, 123–31; B. Hartland, ‘Vaucouleurs, Ludlow and Trim: The Role of Ireland in the Career of Geoffrey de Geneville (c.1226–1314)’, IHS, 32 (2000–1), 457–77, at 469–71. Cf. the disputes over William de Vescy’s alleged abuse of his franchisal rights in Kildare: Rotuli Parliamentorum Anglie hactenus inediti, ed. H. G. Richardson and G. O. Sayles, Camden Soc., 3rd ser., 51 (London, 1935), 30–45; K. J. Stringer, ‘Nobility and Identity in Thirteenth-century Britain and Ireland: The de Vescy Family, c.1120–1314’, in B. Smith (ed.), Britain and Ireland 900–1300: Insular Responses to Medieval European Change (Cambridge, 1999), 199–239, at 232–9. ³¹ For the importance of John’s reign and the earlier thirteenth century in general in these respects see Davies, Conquest, 282–8; K. Mann, ‘The March of Wales: A Question of Terminology’, WHR, 18 (1996–7), 1–13; B. W. Holden, ‘The Making of the Middle March of Wales, 1066–1250’, WHR, 20 (2000–1), 207–26. ³² Hand, English Law, 1–3; P. Brand, ‘Ireland and the Early Literature of the Common Law’, in his The Making of the Common Law (London, 1992), 445–63, at 445–6.

Lordship and Liberties in Ireland and Wales

131

Magna Carta was duly sent for observance in Ireland.³³ The implications for lordship and liberties of the transplanting of English law were already apparent in fresh royal charters for Leinster and Meath issued in 1208 for William Marshal and Walter de Lacy, who had been in dispute with John’s justiciar of Ireland. These reserved pleas of the crown, deﬁned in the Marshal case (though, oddly, not in that of de Lacy) as arson, rape, forstal, and treasure-trove, together with appeals of felony. They made it clear that the royal writ of right should run. They conﬁrmed that anybody who alleged default of justice in the liberty court could appeal to the king’s court. And they reserved to the crown the ‘crosses’, that is all church lands existing at the time of the charters, together with dignities belonging to them.³⁴ Similar restrictions were, in due course, made explicit in relation to Ulster, when it was granted to Walter de Burgh in 1263.³⁵ A map of the later liberty of Kildare reveals the importance of the reservation of the crosses: perhaps one-quarter of well-settled eastern Kildare consisted of church lands.³⁶ This was a far cry from Glamorgan, where the thirteenth-century earls of Gloucester asserted their authority over the lands of Margam and Neath abbeys, and, along with neighbouring lords, until 1290 had some success in claiming regalian right over the bishopric of Llandaff itself.³⁷ When, in the 1290s, records of the Irish courts begin to survive in quantity, they conﬁrm that the king’s ministers kept a close eye on crown rights, were adept at digging legal pits for lords and their ofﬁcials, and were not slow to take liberties into the king’s hand.³⁸ In Wales, of course, royal ofﬁcials operating from Carmarthen created difﬁculties for Marcher lords—for instance, by claiming that suit was owed at the king’s court there from Gower or by lesser Marchers such as the lords of Haverford, whom the earls of Pembroke claimed as their sub-tenants.³⁹ ³³ Statutes, Ordinances and Acts of the Parliament of Ireland, King John to Henry V, ed. H. F. Berry (Dublin, 1907), 5–19. ³⁴ Rotuli Chartarum, ed. T. D. Hardy (Record Commission, London, 1837), 176, 178. The successor lordship of Trim in Meath, uniquely in Ireland, established a right to jurisdiction over the four pleas (Hand, English Law, 124). The fact that the Braose title to Gower, unusually among Welsh lordships, rested on a charter of 1203 contributed to its vulnerability in the time of Edward I (J . B. Smith, ‘The Lordship of Gower and Kilvey in the Middle Ages’, in T. B. Pugh (ed.), Glamorgan County History, iii. The Middle Ages (Cardiff, 1971), 218–43, at 241–3). ³⁵ BL, Add. MS 6041, fol. 100d, and Add. MS 4790, fol. 104d. The ﬁrst surviving Ulster charter, to Hugh de Lacy II in 1205, had imposed knight service and reserved royal rights over the bishoprics but was otherwise couched in general words (Rotuli Chartarum, 151). ³⁶ Otway-Ruthven, ‘The Medieval County of Kildare’, facing 196. ³⁷ M. Altschul, A Baronial Family in Medieval England: The Clares 1217–1314 (Baltimore, 1965), 273–5; M. Howell, ‘Regalian Right in Wales and the March: The Relation of Theory to Practice’, WHR, 7 (1974–5), 269–88. ³⁸ On ministerial hostility to franchises, R. Frame, English Lordship in Ireland 1318–1361 (Oxford, 1982), 119–20, 234. ³⁹ e.g., Calendar of Ancient Petitions relating to Wales, ed. W. Rees (Cardiff, 1975), 344–8, 366; Davies, Lordship, 29–30; J. R. S. Phillips, Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke, 1307–1324 (Oxford, 1972), 250–2.

132

Robin Frame

But in Ireland royal demands were different in quality. The pre-eminence of English law and the emergence of an increasingly professional legal and ﬁnancial establishment at Dublin gave them a continuous, systematic character that placed the holders of franchises on the defensive. The sheriff of Dublin, armed with the writ non omittas, intervened in liberties where lords or their ministers were thought to have disregarded earlier royal orders.⁴⁰ Disputes frequently turned on whether felonies were committed, or property held, within the liberty or in the crosses—islands of royal jurisdiction, for which in the fourteenth-century sheriffs were separately appointed.⁴¹ At least as signiﬁcant as this wrangling was the fact that liberties in Ireland were subject to taxation alongside the counties and boroughs, and were represented in parliaments and great councils.⁴² In Wales, by contrast, the grant of a ﬁfteenth to Edward I in 1291 was an exceptional and controversial matter, with which the earl of Gloucester pleaded with his people to co-operate ‘out of reverence for him and for love of us’.⁴³ Nor are we wholly dependent on the—possibly treacherous—records of central government for this impression of the effectiveness of royal power. Accounts of the ministers of Joan de Valence in Wexford and Elizabeth de Clare in Kilkenny show the ﬂow of fees and douceurs to Dublin ministers, often explicitly for the defence of their liberties.⁴⁴ The record of the earl of Ormond’s liberty court of Tipperary in 1359 conﬁrms that, even at a comparatively late date and in an area distant from Dublin, the jurisdictional authority of a magnate was not wholly autonomous.⁴⁵ It shows the common law in action, with cases of novel disseisin, mort d’ancestor, dower, account, and trespass proceeding. General pardons issued by the earl very properly excluded the four reserved crown pleas. Royal letters of protection, certifying that a litigant could not attend because he was on the king’s service, were enrolled. The records of several cases were summoned into the chancery of Ireland. Nor did Irish customs ﬁgure in the liberty court. The earl’s ofﬁcers bore English names. Those who brought cases belonged to settler families—though, of course, an English patrilineal pedigree and legal identity were compatible with more than a touch of social and cultural hibernicization. There was no equivalent of fees held per Waleschariam, nor did the court proceed by hybrid customs or empanel mixed juries. In general, Gaelic people ﬁgure only as they might in the records of the royal courts in Ireland: standing accused of misdeeds; escaping from the custody of the lord’s ofﬁcers; or paying to have the lord’s peace. ⁴⁰ e.g., Calendar of the Justiciary Rolls, Ireland, ed. J. Mills et al. (Dublin, 1905–56), i. 85, 106, 112, 124, 140, 149, 242, 250, 266, 269, 308. ⁴¹ Ibid., i. 66, 354–5; ii. 328–9. ⁴² e.g., Statutes, Ireland, 232–7 (1300); PRO, E101/241/10 (1346). ⁴³ Littere Wallie, ed. J. G. Edwards (Cardiff, 1940), 181. ⁴⁴ Documents on the Affairs of Ireland, no. 64; PRO, SC6/1239/14, 26. ⁴⁵ NLI, D. 1025; partly calendared in Calendar of Ormond Deeds, ed. E. Curtis, 6 vols. (Dublin, 1932–43), ii. no. 47.

Lordship and Liberties in Ireland and Wales

133

The world of the liberty of Tipperary presents itself as a thoroughly English one. So far the discussion, by stressing English law and constitutional proprieties, threatens to pen lords of Irish liberties in a very cramped corner indeed. It would be easy to press the argument further—for instance, by considering the impact of royal rights of wardship and marriage, which, in Ireland as in Wales, were a practical counterweight to unfettered aristocratic power.⁴⁶ But to do so would be misleading. English rule may, to some extent, have been shaped by what historians once described as the Angevin ‘leap forward’ in royal law and administration. But from the beginning, the exercise of lordship in Ireland—just as in Wales—involved interactions with native leaders. Lords had to assert their authority in a culturally diverse and structurally varied society: even in the south and east, their orbits included—alongside what rapidly became well-settled, Anglicized lowlands such as east Meath, south Wexford, or south Kilkenny—hybrid and largely Gaelic zones where magnate authority waxed and waned according to local political circumstances, and was exercised, when it was exercised at all, through punitive raids, tributes, and hostage-taking. The character of lordship in ‘English’ Ireland was profoundly inﬂuenced by such practicalities. Whatever Henry II may have had in mind when granting Meath to Hugh de Lacy to hold as it had once been held by Ó Máelsechlainn, the form of words symbolizes the fact that Hugh—as well as building castles, settling vassals, and endowing religious houses—engaged with native leaders. He tried to secure and extend his position to the west by marrying a daughter of Ruaidri Ó Conchobhair, king of Connacht. William de Lacy, a son of that union, was to move through several cultural environments, seeking to establish a lordship on Meath’s north-western frontiers, marrying a daughter of Llywelyn the Great, yet serving as a member of Henry III’s military household.⁴⁷ Gaelic annals show that Hugh de Lacy received tributes from the Irish and was constantly involved in war and diplomacy with them.⁴⁸ Such practical necessities generated customs. A century later, in the time of Geoffrey de Geneville, who married one of his great-granddaughters, knightly jurors recorded the accepted rules in Trim for sharing between the lord and those serving him in border war captured horses and other beasts, and for the treatment of prisoners.⁴⁹ Extents from the 1330s show Irish leaders from Meath’s western and northern fringes, some of them described ⁴⁶ Davies, Lordship, ch. 2. ⁴⁷ R. Frame, Ireland and Britain, 37; S. Duffy, ‘The Problem of Degeneracy’, in J. F. Lydon (ed.), Law and Disorder in Thirteenth-century Ireland: The Dublin Parliament of 1297 (Dublin 1997), 87–106, at 91. ⁴⁸ Annals of Loch Cé, ed. W. M. Hennessy, 2 vols. (RS, London, 1871), i. 171, 173. ⁴⁹ Gormanston Register, 182.

134

Robin Frame

as occupying areas ‘within the woods’, owing military services, together with renders in cattle, linen cloths, and squirrel pelts.⁵⁰ These were almost certainly impositions going back to the high point of de Lacy lordship. Similarly in Leinster the early thirteenth-century verse chronicle best known as The Song of Dermot and the Earl shows Strongbow engaged in expeditions alongside Irish allies. He held ‘all the hostages of Leinster according to the ancient custom’. He appointed one of Diarmait MacMurchada’s relatives as king of Uí Chennselaig (what remained of the MacMurchada core kingdom, now centred in north Wexford), and entrusted ‘the pleas of Leinster’ to another.⁵¹ The meaning of this last statement is obscure; but it suggests a continuing role in unsettled areas for Irish leaders, who are all but invisible in the charters, and wholly absent from the feodaries drawn up at the time of the partition of Leinster in 1247. The contemporary evidence from south Wales is more plentiful and reveals interactions of a type that must have been common in Ireland, too. We see the Marshals and de Clares taking stronger action against the dynasty of Morgan of Caerleon and the descendants of the Lord Rhys than sometimes suited the government of Henry III.⁵² On the other hand, royal agents at Carmarthen could cite with approval the policy followed by William Marshal II, ‘who controlled the Welsh at his will; he gave two baronies of his own land . . . to a certain Welshman, Cynan ap Hywel, in order to hold down the Welsh by him; and so he did’.⁵³ The approach of the lords of Leinster to local Gaelic leaders was, no doubt, similarly hard-headed. William Marshal I has earned a reputation for hostility to native Irish churchmen, but he favoured a branch of the Ó Tuathail dynasty with a grant of English legal status.⁵⁴ In 1279 Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk, a Marshal co-heir, visited his lordship of Carlow. At the justiciar’s request, he conciliated Muirchertach and Art MacMurchada, leaders of a recent uprising, providing them with gifts of money, wine, and furs. He also reported to Edward I that he had been told, possibly to his surprise, that these Gaelic aristocrats were his kinsmen.⁵⁵ ⁵⁰ A. J. Otway-Ruthven, ‘The Partition of the de Verdon lands in Ireland in 1332’, PRIA, 66 C (1968), 406, 412–13, 422–3, 427, 428, 430, 433, 435. ⁵¹ Song of Dermot and the Earl, ed. G. H. Orpen (Oxford, 1892); The Deeds of the Normans in Ireland: La Geste des Engleis en Yrlande, ed. E. Mullally (Dublin, 2002), ll. 2185–8, 3218–21, et passim. For the MacMurroughs, R. Frame, ‘Two Kings in Leinster: The Crown and the MicMhurchadha in the Fourteenth Century’, in Barry et al. (eds.), Colony and Frontier, 155–75, at 155–60. ⁵² e.g., Annales Monastici, ed. H. R. Luard, 5 vols. (RS, London, 1864–9), i. 36, 37, 70, 90–1, 92, 124–5; Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum, ed. T. D. Hardy, 2 vols. (Record Commission, London, 1833–44), i. 564–5, ii. 17; Patent Rolls 1232–47, 24, 26, 153, 160. ⁵³ Calendar of Ancient Correspondence concerning Wales, ed. J. G. Edwards (Cardiff, 1935), 48; Latin text, Royal and Other Historical Letters of the Reign of Henry III, ed. W. W. Shirley, 2 vols. (RS, London, 1866–8), i. 426–7. ⁵⁴ Cal. Justiciary Rolls, i. 271; J. Watt, The Church in Medieval Ireland, 2nd edn. (Dublin, 1998), 100–2. ⁵⁵ Frame, Ireland and Britain, 241–7.

Lordship and Liberties in Ireland and Wales

135

It is only from the mid-fourteenth century that we have a critical mass of documents which seek to deﬁne such cross-cultural aspects of lordship. Their survival reﬂects the general growth of seignorial record-keeping in the later medieval period, but it also reveals the crystallization of mixed customs in frontier zones where the initiative was no longer with the English. In 1358, for instance, the earl of Ormond made an agreement in indentured form with Edmund Ó Ceinnéidigh of north Tipperary.⁵⁶ The earl, who had brought Edmund to England in honourable captivity, released him in return for a large payment. Edmund was to surrender six sons and two nephews as hostages for his good behaviour. He was to be allowed to occupy up to 15 carucates of land, in return for rent. He promised military service, free within his own marches but at the earl’s wages beyond them, when he would supply up to 40 horsemen and 120 foot. He would discipline his own people; if they trespassed on the earl’s territory, he would deliver them up for punishment, or pay compensation to the earl and the English who had been injured. He would keep his idlemen (well-born but landless retainers) off the backs of earl’s tenants. The earl, in return, would concede to him the goods of any Englishman who trespassed against him. He was also granted the right to complain to the earl’s seneschal, and in the last resort to Ormond himself. In Tipperary two forms of jurisdiction—one deﬁned by English law and feudal tenures; the other by military dominance, mutually understood conventions, and ad hoc agreements—were intended to merge at the top, in the person of the earl. The Ó Ceinnéidigh indenture envisages attendance at the earl’s courts, and the 1359 roll lists ﬁnes imposed on Ó Ceinnéidigh and other Irish for non-appearance. Presumably the court, as well as operating the legal system of the liberty, could serve as a forum where disputes were resolved, petitions heard, and Irish leaders held to account for the behaviour of their men. This mirrors the court of the justiciar of Ireland, where, among the endless records of assizes and pleas of the crown, are sprinkled occasional submissions and undertakings by Irish leaders.⁵⁷ Politically and culturally Tipperary, like all the counties and liberties of southern Ireland, was a hybrid or transitional zone. Despite Meath’s greater proximity to Dublin, it, too, reveals a rich variety of styles of lordship. This is apparent in the account of Thomas Badby, keeper of the liberty of Trim in 1360–1, when it was in the king’s hand.⁵⁸ Formal franchisal structures are reﬂected in payments to the seneschal, the chancellor, and the chamberlains of the exchequer at Trim, together with narratores pleading in the liberty court, one of whom was associated with the seneschal in holding pleas of the crown. Military lordship is visible in a payment to the seneschal for leading 200 horsemen at Mullingar and elsewhere while ‘treating for the peace’ with the Tyrells ⁵⁶ Cal. Ormond Deeds, ii. no. 46. For further discussion of this and similar documents see J. A. Watt, in NHI, ii. 325–9; Frame, English Lordship, 42–6. ⁵⁷ Cal. Justiciary Rolls, i. 61; NLI, Genealogical Ofﬁce MS 191, 58 and MS 192, 53–5. ⁵⁸ PRO, E 101/244/3.

136

Robin Frame

and the Pettits, Herbert de la Mare, and Robert Tuyt—an episode that provides a glimpse of a world of extended settler kins, among whom the lord’s interests had to be negotiated. Herbert and Geoffrey de la Mare were, in turn, paid for capturing Edmund Ó Fearghail, ‘felon and enemy’, whom they sent to Trim castle as a hostage for his brother Seán and the entire Ó Fearghail kin. The hostile, stereotyped wording suggests a sharper distinction between English and Gaelic lineages than actually existed in most practical respects: a generation later, local annals reveal these and other kins from Meath and its fringes engaged in feuds, parleys, alliances, and the building of tower-houses.⁵⁹ The account also includes payments for defence against those who are portrayed as outside enemies, the O’Connors and other ‘malefactors of Carbury and Offaly’, against whom a band of kern, under a Gaelic Irish leader, was hired to protect Trim. Within the orbit of the lordship, boundaries between jurisdiction and arbitration, between ‘internal’ and ‘external’, between rule and diplomacy, were (and are) not easy to draw. These and similar documents are a reminder of the shrewdness of Rees Davies’s remark that the power of lordship ‘could be personal, territorial, jurisdictional, or any combination thereof’.⁶⁰ A bond entered into in parliament at Dublin 1324 by seventeen ‘earls, barons, and other great men of lineage’ neatly encapsulates the point. The leaders promised that they would take and cause to be taken, the felons, robbers, and thieves of their own family and surname, and their adherents . . . in march districts, and all other felons and notorious evildoers who shall be found and received in their lordships in land of peace, at their own costs . . . and those who are thus taken, they shall bring or cause to be brought to the courts of our lord the king, to be amenable to justice; saving the reasonable position of lords of franchises.⁶¹

Magnate authority is here portrayed in a mixture of modes, involving kinship, clientage, and territory. Franchises might or might not come into picture; where they did, they gave lordship an additional edge and extra proﬁtability. The bond reveals, in addition, the willingness in practice of ministers of the crown, so often encountered as sticklers for the niceties of common law, to recognize, harness, and indeed strengthen and try to adjust useful lines of authority, of whatever type. This ﬂexibility extended to relations with marcher kin-groups and Gaelic lords. Governors of Ireland consciously used general pardons as a means of keeping lines of contact open with settler families whose involvement in the rough and tumble of the marches placed them outside the range of common law.⁶² From the mid-fourteenth century there was increasing employment of the ⁵⁹ Miscellaneous Irish Annals (1114–1437), ed. S. Ó hInnse (Dublin, 1947), 142–85. ⁶⁰ R. R. Davies, ‘Lordship or Colony?’, in J. F. Lydon (ed.), The English in Medieval Ireland (Dublin, 1984), 142–60, at 147. ⁶¹ Statutes, Ireland, 306–9. ⁶² R. Frame, ‘Thomas Rokeby, Sheriff of Yorkshire, Justiciar of Ireland’, Peritia, 10 (1996), 274–96, at 283–4.

Lordship and Liberties in Ireland and Wales

137

term capitaneus nacionis sue (‘head of his kin’), in royal and seigniorial documents that sought to impose deﬁned obligations on Gaelic and ‘gaelicized’ leaders.⁶³ Davies also wrote of ‘concentric circles of lordship [which]—extending, as it were, in unequal and imperfect ripples according to the pattern of authority—were never perfectly linked’. ⁶⁴ One of the more insistent themes in the history of lordship in later medieval Ireland is the quest by nominally superior authorities to identify subordinates on whom they could ﬁx responsibility. In Ireland, whether Gaelic or English, imagined hierarchies were two a penny; workable hierarchies were harder to identify and sustain. Writing of later medieval Irish law, Gearóid Mac Niocaill pointed to the ‘balkanized’ state of the Gaelic polity and the absence of a ‘pyramid of lordship’.⁶⁵ On the English side, legislation of the Irish parliament complained about the problem presented by the escapes of felons between counties and liberties.⁶⁶ Agreements made by magnates and by the king’s representatives with Gaelic lords sought, as in the Ó Ceinnéidigh indenture, to resolve the difﬁculties anticipated when either party tried to make the arrangements stick among their own people. The archbishops of Armagh struggled to protect their interests amidst the kaleidoscopic politics of the northern lordships by dignifying this or that regulus or capitaneus as the recognized ‘secular arm’.⁶⁷ The jurisdictions of lords of liberties were deﬁned in common-law terms and are thus clearly visible in the records. But they were just one among many mechanisms through which lordship was expressed and asserted, and not necessarily the most important. Over most of late medieval Ireland there was a decreasing amount of royal government for the proverbial ‘well-endowed immunist’ to be immune from. Discussing Ireland and Wales together resembles searching for footholds on constantly shifting ground. These pages have offered no more than random snapshots of a few details of two crowded scenes, which sometimes seem to pass each other heading in opposite directions (Ireland in the fourteenth century can seem reminiscent of Wales before 1282). Wales saw interaction between peoples and customs under the authority of lords, into the internal workings of whose lordships the crown probed only occasionally. Lordship in the March in consequence had a protean quality, which, on the whole, survived the challenges of thirteenth-century kings, and even the changes in other parts of Wales inaugurated by Edward I’s conquests. Those changes came ⁶³ From the Irish perspective, K. Simms, From Kings to Warlords: The Changing Political Structure of Gaelic Ireland in the Later Middle Ages (Woodbridge, 1987), 37–8; from that of royal ofﬁcials, Frame, Ireland and Britain, 270–5, 296. ⁶⁴ ‘Lordship or Colony?’, 149. ⁶⁵ G. Mac Niocaill, ‘Aspects of Irish law in the Thirteenth Century’, in G. A. Hayes-McCoy (ed.), Historical Studies X (Galway, 1976), 25–42, at 39–40. ⁶⁶ Statutes, Ireland, 288–9, 326–7, 380–3, 450–3. ⁶⁷ K. Simms, ‘The Archbishops of Armagh and the O’Neills, 1347–1471’, IHS, 19 (1974–5), 38–55.

138

Robin Frame

at a time when English legal culture was sufﬁciently sophisticated to discriminate between ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ aspects of Welsh custom, and to harness serviceable features of the native principality—which had itself, of course, already absorbed inﬂuences from the outside world.⁶⁸ Such well-established interactions meant that the societies of the Edwardian principality and the March were far from incompatible. In Ireland, by contrast, the barriers appear more stark. Lordships there were forming just as English common law and royal jurisdiction were becoming more pervasive and deﬁned; moreover the early intervention of the crown served to inhibit ready interchange of customs. The impression of inﬂexibility is not wholly misleading when we consider the extensive parts of eastern and southern Ireland where, in the thirteenth century, crown government was effective (or at least intrusive). But it is far from the whole story. From the start, power ﬂowed along additional channels, which were not ofﬁcially recognized. That these become more obvious to us in the fourteenth century is only in part explained by the survival of a wider range of sources. The retreat of settlement, and of the English systems associated with it, meant that lords—including, in practice, the representatives of the crown, for all their fulminations against Gaelic inﬂuences and marcher customs—had to show even greater political and cultural versatility. ⁶⁸ See esp. Ll. B. Smith, ‘The Statute of Wales, 1284’, WHR, 10 (1980), 127–54.

10 ‘Distinction and Diversity’: The Common Lawyers and the Law of Wales J. Beverley Smith

In the preamble to the measure for the reform of the government of Wales brought before parliament in 1536 the legislators enlarged, in suitably solemn phraseology, upon the ‘distinction and diversity’ that had previously been made between the subjects of the king’s realm and those of his dominion and principality of Wales.¹ The discord and division that the king now wished to dispel in the interests of concord and unity were part of an experience that Wales had, to some extent, shared with the other lands that had felt the assertive power of the English monarchy in the course of the medieval centuries. The themes of political power and people’s identities in Britain and Ireland were closely studied by Rees Davies in a contribution of a truly inspirational nature and one that is certain of enduring inﬂuence. In his lucid and persuasive writing, he was well aware that drawing parallels between the history of the several countries was far from straightforward: there were themes where any two of the countries of Wales, Ireland, or Scotland, taken in relation to England, might provide bases of comparison that might not readily extend to all three, and there might be themes that were particular to a single country. It was no small part of his skill in exposition that he was able to weave an account that respected such divergencies. Central to Davies’s quest for understanding was the growth of political power in England, which, by the reign of Edward I, came to be expressed in a greatly increased sovereign authority that variously affected each of the lands of Britain and Ireland.² In Davies’s view, the ‘masterful’ authority of the king, reﬂected perhaps in eloquent pronouncements on the native laws of Ireland or Wales, represented an ‘imperialist’ position in two senses. On the one hand, Edward sought to integrate his conquests under the crown of England, destroying their ¹ I wish to acknowledge the great kindness of Richard Ireland in reading this essay and offering most helpful comment. For the text of the Union legislation, below, n. 5. ² Davies, Domination; id., Empire; id., ‘The Peoples of Britain and Ireland 1100–1400’, TRHS, 6th ser., 4 (1994), 1–20; 5 (1995), 1–20; 6 (1996), 1–24; 7 (1997), 1–24.

140

J. Beverley Smith

separate political identities. On the other hand, the king could be inclined to draw sharp distinctions between his English subjects and those of other nations subject to him. Much of this argument, and many of the consequences of royal policy set out most fully in Davies’s perceptive commentary on post-conquest Wales, cannot be gainsaid.³ Yet close attention to the legal and social position in Wales in the aftermath of conquest reveals some paradoxical results, and the more so if account is taken of the manner in which the tendencies of the early years were to unfold in the following centuries. In what follows the legacy of the years of Edward I—and that of a second ‘imperialist’ king, Henry VIII—will be considered in relation to two related issues. One turns on the question of legal status in respect of persons; the other on the status of Wales in relation to royal jurisdiction in the centuries that followed the crucially formative period that Davies identiﬁed. For there emerged at this time a conception of ‘the law of Wales’ that was to be subject to comment on the part of successive generations of English common lawyers, and remained an inﬂuence among lawyers even until the nineteenth century. These themes are brought into instructive focus by the arguments rehearsed in the case brought before the Westminster courts on behalf of Robert Calvin following the Union of the crowns of England and Scotland in 1603.⁴ For it was in the course of this case that the lawyers examined the proposition of a commission of both parliaments that the Union of the crowns effected a mutual naturalization of the peoples of the two kingdoms. The Union of Wales with the realm of England—‘incorporated, united and annexed to and with this his realm of Englande’—had never excited any comparable legal argument, though common lawyers were aware that the legislation of 1536 had pronounced that those born in the principality of Wales ‘shall have, enjoy and enherite all and singuler fredomes, liberties, rightes, privileges and lawes within this realme . . . as other the kinges subiectes naturally borne within the same have, enjoy and enherite’.⁵ The precise signiﬁcance of this phraseology, which appears to imply that a legal distinction had previously been made between those born in Wales and other subjects of the king, never became a matter of concern to the common lawyers, nor has its meaning greatly troubled more recent historians. Yet the questions raised are of some consequence: were the Welsh people legally distinct from the English in the period before the Union; and does the fact that during the course of the ﬁfteenth century some Welshmen found it necessary to apply for denization signify that they may be counted with those of Gascony or Guienne, Brabant or Germany as men who sought emancipation from the legal status ³ R. R. Davies, ‘Race Relations in Post-conquest Wales’, THSC, 1974–5, 32–56; id., ‘Colonial Wales’, P&P, 65 (1974), 249–73; and valuable discussion in id., Lordship, 297–456. ⁴ A Complete Collection of State Trials, ed. W. Cobbett (London, 1809–28), ii. 559–695; English Reports, lxxvii. 379–410; K. Kim, Aliens in Medieval Law: The Origin of Modern Citizenship (Cambridge, 2000), 176–99. ⁵ SR, iii. 563 (27 Henry VIII, c.26, § i); English Reports, lxxv. 187 (Buckley v. Thomas, 1555).

The Common Lawyers and the Law of Wales

141

of an alien (alienegena)?⁶ To answer this question, we shall need to consider the precise nature of the provisions made for the government of Wales after the conquest, and the search may beneﬁt from the comments offered by the common lawyers over an extended period preceding the deliberations in Calvin’s case and for some time thereafter. Central to the theme of the judgement that Edward Coke, lord chancellor, delivered in Calvin’s case in 1608 was the concept of ‘ligeance’, deﬁned as ‘a true and faithful obedience of the subject to his sovereign’.⁷ The converse was the state of a person in alienigena, in Thomas Littleton’s terms one ‘born out of the ligeance of the king and under the ligeance of another’, and one who could be brought into ligeance only by the sovereign’s grace through denization. This view of ligeance allowed that, as Coke reasoned, Wales, though once a kingdom, had always been ‘within the fee of the king of England’, and its people thereby met the principal criterion that ‘whosoever is born within the fee of the king of England, though he be in another kingdom, is a natural born subject and capable of inheritance of lands in England’.⁸ The notion of ligeance, very pertinent to the issue of royal jurisdiction in Wales that forms a second theme in our discussion, has an immediate relevance to the situation of the communities bonded in a direct relationship with their sovereign lord upon the extinction of the princes at the conquest. Edward had then declared that Wales was united to the king’s dominion ‘not by power alone but by way of justice’,⁹ and a prescription thereupon embodied in the Statute of Wales of 1284, namely that the criminal law would be that of the realm of England and none other, had all the resonances of the ‘imperialist’ declarations of the preceding years. Royal directive on this issue followed naturally from the grandiloquent preamble to the Statute that told how Divine Providence, nothing less, had bestowed upon the king a land previously subject iure feodali and annexed it to the crown as a member of the same body.¹⁰ There was nothing here to suggest that Welsh subjects were regarded as aliens, and we need to appreciate the effect of the provisions in their entirety, for they were certainly presented as measures that took account of the existing legal order and the wishes of the people subject to royal lordship. The statute, allowing the use of Welsh law in personal actions as well as giving litigants access to the common-law writs of debt and covenant, also endorsed the community’s wish, reﬂecting tendencies already at work in the princes’ lands, that litigants should have recourse to the verdict of a jury in real actions. Their preference eased the way to the adoption of the possessory actions of novel disseisin and mort ⁶ Below, [pp. 144–5]. ⁷ State Trials, ii. 614–36; English Reports, lxxvii. 396–9. ⁸ Coke speciﬁcally applied the principle to Wales before the conquest, so that the Welshman was deemed ‘inheritable of land in England’. ⁹ CChR, ii. 284. ¹⁰ SR, i. 55–68.

142

J. Beverley Smith

d’ancestor, and, especially, the specially devised ‘general writ’ (breve commune) that the ordinances provided.¹¹ The king’s subjects in his newly conquered land, of whatever nation, would receive justice without distinction in a single inclusive judicature. The combination of new and older legal processes is best elucidated in a version of the royal statute declared in the name of Richard, earl of Arundel, in 1391 for the Marcher lordship of Bromﬁeld and Yale, a document that does much to elucidate the similarities between the Principality and some, at least, of the newly created Marcher lordships with regard to the respective positions of native and English law.¹² Probably ﬁrst enacted early in the post-conquest period, the Marcher ordinances describe in detail the legal procedures whereby Welsh and English tenants took justice under their lord’s jurisdiction. Actions by English law concur very closely with those prescribed in 1284, while those by Welsh law are speciﬁed more fully than previously. Thus, for instance, it is said that in actions for land in Welsh tenure there were only two kinds of plea, namely a plea of novel disseisin and a plea of right, and this was based on the ‘general writ’ of the royal ordinances. There was clearly some assimilation of English and Welsh procedures, but the Marcher ordinances are conspicuous for their exposition of the Welsh preferences that were respected in matters such as dower provision and succession to inheritances, denying succession to bastards but allowing for its licensing by the law of inclusion (cynnwys).¹³ The legal processes described, whose practical application is well demonstrated in court records, reﬂect an association of English and Welsh procedures in a judicial order forged by lord and community in the post-conquest period. ¹⁴ Neither in the Principality of Wales nor in the Marcher lands can the legal enactment of the period following the conquest be characterized as a protocol marked by discrimination in legal status between persons of the two nations. It was rather a differentiation that respected, in a single inclusive order, the respective preferences of the Welsh and English communities under ligeance to the crown. Thus, practical implementation of legal procedure might reﬂect mutual preferences in the composition of juries. At the same time post-conquest precepts did not necessarily provide for social harmony, and there is ample evidence of continuing negotiation between lord and community, and, under the practice of collective judgement maintained by royal and Marcher authorities alike, the resolution of disputes in court by agreement between ofﬁcers and ¹¹ Ll. B. Smith, ‘The Statute of Wales, 1284’, WHR, 10 (1980–1), 127–54; recent discussion in P. Brand, ‘An English Legal Historian Looks at the Statute of Wales’, in T. G. Watkin (ed.), Welsh Legal History Society, 3 (Bangor, 2003), 20–56. ¹² BL, Add. MS, 10,013. The lordships were those of Gwynedd east of the Conwy (Denbigh and Dyffryn Clwyd) and northern Powys (Chirk and Bromﬁeld and Yale). ¹³ Ibid., ff. 5–7. ¹⁴ J. B. Smith, ‘Judgement under the Law of Wales’, Studia Celtica, 39 (2005), 63–103, at 90–1.

The Common Lawyers and the Law of Wales

143

suitors.¹⁵ Territorial separation of English and Welsh communities, a particular feature of the organization of the lordship of Denbigh, and the expropriation of Welsh proprietors and their resettlement were not characteristic of the arrangements universally made at the conquest. In contrast to earlier practice in the colonization of many areas of the March of Wales, references to Walescheria may indicate not a territorial divide but a tenurial differentiation reﬂecting preferences that would be modiﬁed only to the extent that gradual adoption of English tenure by individual proprietors anticipated its general provision over a wide area of northern Wales by royal ordinance in the Tudor period.¹⁶ Difﬁculties certainly arose from the coexistence of two modes of tenure, but the critical consideration was tenure and not personal status at law. The more closely the record is studied, the better able we are to appreciate the extent to which the conqueror, to a degree the captive of his own power, became guardian of the traditional interest in the land under his dominion. Moreover, the ordinances issued in 1284 proved to be the genesis of an enduring Welsh judicature to which we shall have cause to refer again in the course of this discussion.¹⁷ The post-conquest evidence reveals, in fact, only one signiﬁcant source of discrimination in the creation, most evidently under the shelter of the castles in the crown lands of the Principality of North Wales, of plantation boroughs that were to be marked by a fateful fusion of burghal privilege and alien settlement.¹⁸ By no means a feature of the boroughs’ foundation charters—which excluded Jews but not Welshmen—the denial to Welshmen of the right to hold lands in burghal liberties was among the restrictive ordinances issued by Edward I in reaction to the insurrection of 1294.¹⁹ The ‘English walled towns’ of North Wales, as they were thereafter to be known, saw the creation within the ranks of those in the king’s ligeance of a group identiﬁed, not by a distinction in legal status, but by a differentiation in ﬁscal privilege. Whereas the original charters had speciﬁed the immunity of the burgesses from prosecution by forinseci in the sense of persons other than those from within their burghal ranks, the term came to signify the Welsh community beyond the walls as distinct from the English community of the boroughs themselves.²⁰ Thereafter the burghers’ propensity to protectionist concern for their interests proved to be a source of reactionary ¹⁵ Ibid., Ll. B. Smith, ‘The Arundel Charters to the Lordship of Chirk in the Fourteenth Century’, BBCS, 22 (1968–70), 153–66. ¹⁶ J. B. Smith, ‘Crown and Community in the Principality of North Wales in the Reign of Henry Tudor’, WHR, 3 (1966–7), 145–71, at 157–8; duality in tenure is discussed in Davies, Lordship, 302–18, 443–56. ¹⁷ Below, [pp. 151–2]. ¹⁸ These issues may be considered in the context set out in Davies, ‘Colonial Wales’, 20–1; discrimination in a situation of ‘ethnic duality’ is considered in Davies, Revolt, 64–70. In this discussion ‘North Wales’ refers to the three counties of Anglesey, Caernarfon, and Merioneth administered from the royal exchequer at Caernarfon. ¹⁹ CChR, ii. 276–8, 280; Rec. Caern., 132. ²⁰ e.g., Calendar of Ancient Petitions Relating to Wales, ed. W. Rees (Cardiff, 1975), 439–40.

144

J. Beverley Smith

resistance to any alleviation of the disadvantages endured by those, men and women of the Welsh nation, who were envisaged by the burghal communities as the ‘foreign persons’ (forinseci or forenses) outside their protective walls. The burghers’ reaction would reach its apogee in resistance to Henry Tudor’s measures, designed to absolve the Welsh communities from the legislation of the period of the Glyndwr ˆ rebellion, that put their exclusive privilege under threat.²¹ Here lies a situation that may most readily be recognized as one of a ‘colonial’ nature in its classic expression of the inherent conﬂict of interest of metropolitan authority, settler community, and indigenous population with which modern society would be made familiar. It could be reasoned that it was the burghal presence which, more than any other single inﬂuence, placed the ligeance of the Welsh nation under strain in the later medieval centuries. It happens that an assertion by Hywel ap Gruffudd, a litigant in the court of king’s bench in 1331, that he was an alien (alienegena), born in the Principality of Wales outside the realm of England, was made in circumstances that reﬂected the prevailing tensions between Welsh and settler communities. The assertion was made upon a plea in which Hywel accused William Shalford, a burgess of Caernarfon, of complicity in the death of Edward II, the defendant’s mainprises drawn from among his fellow-burgesses of North Wales and those of his accuser from among his Welsh compatriots in an ominously vindictive social division.²² Crucially, burghal privilege and its denial to men of Welsh nationality constitutes a main ingredient in the statutory provisions—‘severe and invective laws’ in Edward Coke’s terms—that were imposed by Henry IV in 1401 in reaction to the insurrection.²³ It was joined with the clause that, more than any other, created statutory legal discrimination in its provision that for three years no ‘whole Englishmen’ (entiers Engloises) should be convicted at the suit of a Welshman except by judgement of an English justice or that of ‘whole English burgesses’ (entiers Engloises burgeoises).²⁴ The measure concerning burghal privilege proved to be a potent inﬂuence in bringing Welshmen to seek emancipation through resort to procedures akin to those by which aliens in England sought denizenship, petitions that in 1444 moved the burgesses to seek the reafﬁrmation of the restrictive enactments of 1294 and 1401, lest the Welshmen secured ‘the same fredom and libertee as Englisshmen’.²⁵ However, there was a crucial difference. By the letters patent granted to aliens in England the beneﬁciary became the king’s liege and did homage so as to ²¹ Smith, ‘Crown and Community’, 170–1. ²² Select Cases in the Court of King’s Bench (1272–1422), ed. G. O. Sayles, Selden Society, 76 (London, 1957), v. 58–63. ²³ SR, ii. 129 (2 Henry IV, cc. 19, 20); E. Coke, The Fourth Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England (London, 1648), 240. ²⁴ Cf. the charter to the borough of Holt, 1399 (CPR, 1396–9, 484, cited in Davies, Revolt, 68). ²⁵ Rot. Parl., v. 104. For the subjects of the king’s dominions and denization, R. A. Grifﬁths, King and Country: England and Wales in the Fifteenth Century (London, 1991), 33–54.

The Common Lawyers and the Law of Wales

145

become ‘one of our true and faithful lieges in our kingdom of England’, and thereby capable of acquiring lands in the kingdom and pursuing real and personal actions in the king’s courts.²⁶ By contrast, the crown’s response to the Welsh petitions reﬂects the particular circumstances created by Henry IV’s legislation.²⁷ There was no intimation whatsoever that the Welsh beneﬁciary became the king’s liege, for his legal status as a liegeman of the king was never in question, though the petitioner might take care to afﬁrm his or his antecedent’s loyalty to the king at the time of the rebellion. But statutory law had placed the petitioner in a position wherein he had need to secure certain speciﬁc privileges enjoyed ‘by other loyal English lieges’. Thus, the resulting letters patent ensured that he be treated ‘as a true English liege of the king’ (sicut verus Anglicanus ligeus regis), more speciﬁcally given the right to acquire lands in England and, quite crucially, in the English boroughs in Wales. In short, rebellion had occasioned a breach of fealty on the Welshman’s part, but without his incurring alien status. The anomalous situation was removed in the reign of Henry Tudor by ‘charters of liberties’ which, secured for the communities by composition with the crown despite the reaction of the ‘English walled towns’, effectively annulled the statutes of 1401.²⁸ The declaration in the Union legislation that Welshmen should thereafter share the privileges enjoyed by ‘the kynges subjects naturally born’ had no reference to the earlier restrictive enactment. These words related rather to the following provisions of the act which laid down that lands would be heritable by English tenure and ensured that statutes would be applied as they were in England.²⁹ ‘Distinction and diversity’ had been exorcised, but the Union legislation still left a signiﬁcant inheritance from the period of the conquest: ﬁrst, in the extension to the whole of Wales of the legal practices established in North Wales by the Statute of 1284, a matter to which we shall return; and, second, in the position of the Westminster courts in relation to process into Wales.³⁰ Edward Coke’s emphasis on ligeance has an even more pertinent relevance to the issue of royal jurisdiction in Wales. Reasoning that Wales was ‘sometime a kingdom’, albeit one held ‘within the fee of the king of England’, Coke subscribed to a view that had long been part of the common lawyers’ train of thought.³¹ In the ﬁfteenth century John Fortescue had described Wales as ‘once a kingdom of itself’ in explaining the distinction between its jurisdictional position and that of the English palatinates which were ‘derived out of the crown’: writ of ²⁶ e.g., CPR, 1391–96, 9, 285; CPR, 1396–99, 84, 176; Kim, Aliens in Medieval Law, 52–7. ²⁷ Rot. Parl., iv. 325, 415; v. 16, 45; Calendar of Ancient Petitions, ed. Rees, 37–8, 135–6. This is one of several points where, for reasons of economy, it has not been possible to consider Irish analogy. ²⁸ Smith, ‘Crown and Community’, 157–9; the statutes were abrogated in 1623 (SR, iv, pt. ii. 28, § xi). ²⁹ SR, iii. 563, § i. ³⁰ Below, [pp. 151–2]. ³¹ State Trials, ii. 646; English Reports, lxxvii. 403.

146

J. Beverley Smith

error lay from the palatinates of Chester, Lancaster, and Durham to the court of king’s bench but not from Wales, and error from Wales could be addressed only in parliament.³² Fortescue might thus appear to be seeking an explanation of the existing position by envisaging a time when Welsh rulers—kings and then princes—were in the king’s ligeance but a time when their lands were not at common law. Certainly, the thirteenth century saw argument between the princes and the crown on matters of law, and the princes’ assertion of their right to judgement by the law of Wales became, as Rees Davies showed, a signiﬁcant expression of Welsh political identity.³³ This contention might seem to provide the historical setting in which the jurisdictional position of Wales, revealed in the evidence of later centuries, had ﬁrst come to be deﬁned. But close examination of the dispute between Llywelyn ap Gruffudd and Edward I, in the crucial plea in the debate, indicates that law, not jurisdiction, was the crucial issue. The difﬁculty lay rather in the prince’s insistence that proceedings before the royal justices, in a case that he had himself brought before them, should lead to judgement by Welsh law, and that the judgement should be determined by Welsh judges (ynaid ) competent to do so.³⁴ Edward had, at ﬁrst, been greatly encouraged by the prince’s wish to bring the action over Arwystli before his justices, thereby unquestionably acknowledging royal jurisdiction, but he was to be confounded by a proposition on Llywelyn’s part that, in effect, meant a delegation of royal justice to the ynaid. Edward was unable to concede this demand, for it had potentially far-reaching consequences for the integrity and efﬁcacy of royal jurisdiction, nor was he prepared to enter into an explicit repudiation of the prince’s preference, lest he appear to deny the princes their inherent right to Welsh law. But, in accord with well-founded precedents, the principle of royal jurisdiction was never questioned in this case, nor in any other. Thus, in another instructive action, Rhys Wyndod of Ystrad Tywi challenged the jurisdiction of the justices only in order that, placed in a dire juridical predicament by John Giffard’s grotesquely unwarranted claim to the lands of Rhys’s inheritance, the case could be heard, under royal jurisdiction, in the court of the county of Carmarthen by Welsh law and in accordance with established practice.³⁵ ³² Les Reports des cases, 11 vols. (London, 1678–80): Year Book, 19 Henry VI, f. 12 (cf. Year Book, 32 Henry VI, f. 25; Year Book, 36 Henry VI, f. 33); J. B. Smith, ‘The Legal Position of Wales in the Middle Ages’, in A. Harding (ed.), Law-making and Law-makers in British History (London, 1980), 21–53, at 50–1. ³³ R. R. Davies, ‘Law and National Identity in Thirteenth-Century Wales’, in id. et al. (eds.), Welsh Society and Nationhood (Cardiff, 1984), 51–9. ³⁴ J. B. Smith, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, Prince of Wales (Cardiff, 1998), 469–89, 493–6. ³⁵ Ibid., 489–90. Davies, ‘Law and National Identity’, 64–5, emphasizes jurisdiction rather than law as the matter on which English policy concentrated; id., The King of England and the Prince of Wales 1277–84: Law, Politics and Power, Kathleen Hughes Memorial Lectures on Mediaeval Welsh History, 3 (Cambridge, 2003), 16–19, carries the same emphasis, but concludes that the disputes were not about law or jurisdiction but power. My emphasis takes account of the ﬁrm

The Common Lawyers and the Law of Wales

147

Since the princes themselves had accepted the principle that they were justiciable in the king’s courts, the jurisdictional position of Wales that later concerned Fortescue and other lawyers cannot be explained with reference to their litigation, so precipitately terminated in 1282. The genesis of the jurisdiction that characterized ‘the law of Wales’ of later years must be sought elsewhere. Explanation has rather to take account of the two aspects of what Matthew Hale termed the ‘double consideration’ that arose in discussing Wales.³⁶ One was Edward’s creation, in the Principality of Wales that was secured by conquest, of a judicature that had parity of jurisdiction with the Westminster courts, appeal upon error being directed to king in council or parliament. The other, even more instructive, was the legal position of the March of Wales that forms the second aspect of Hale’s consideration. We thus need to concentrate on the magnates who exercised a regality in the March of Wales that, in their estimation, was derived not from delegation by the crown of England but from the conquest effected in Wales by those whose heirs they were. Deﬁning an entirely new concept of ‘the law of Wales’, the lords of the March, essentially in the last two decades of the thirteenth century, established precedents that gave birth to an enduring Welsh legal identity under the aegis of the common law of England. The traditional view of the relations between Edward I and the Marchers takes its keynote from the cause c´el`ebre that reached its spectacular climax with the humiliation of the earls of Hereford and Gloucester in proceedings in parliament in 1291.³⁷ Brought down for waging war on the frontier between their lands in deﬁance of speciﬁc royal prohibition, their discomﬁture may be seen as a dramatic statement of the sovereign lord’s supreme authority over his entire kingdom, but the case can equally be seen in a very different light. However strenuously the attorneys might argue that the issue touched the dignity of the crown, the unease among the earls’ peers was an inauspicious augury, though not the ﬁrst, of the Marchers’ political opposition to the king that led to their part in the forging of the Remonstrances of 1297.³⁸ Furthermore, the issue resolved in 1291 took no account of the conﬂict preceding royal prohibition that had already elicited a statement coram rege by Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester, that the matter should ﬁrst be addressed according to the arbitration procedures provided by the custom of the March.³⁹ This precedents for the princes’ submission to royal jurisdiction, with the proviso that judgement and certain facets of procedure be according to Welsh law, and suggests that the litigation of the period before 1282 left no jurisdictional legacy to form any part of the ‘law of Wales’ that concerned the later lawyers. ³⁶ Sir Matthew Hales’s The Prerogatives of the Crown, ed. D. E. C. Yale, Selden Society, 92 (London, 1976), 21–32. ³⁷ Davies, Lordship, 249–73. ³⁸ ‘Calendar of Welsh Rolls’, Calendar of Chancery Rolls Various (London, 1912), 334–49; below, n. 49. ³⁹ PRO, KB27/126, m. 26; Abbreviatio Placitorum. Richard I—Edward II, ed. G. Rose and W. Illingworth (Record Commission, London, 1811), 226.

148

J. Beverley Smith

principle had, indeed, been admitted ten years earlier, when Edward, in a fateful concession entirely at variance with his propensity to exalt his sovereignty over the March, allowed that disputes should be resolved by Marcher practices, and only if these were to fail would royal justices be sent to secure a record to be brought coram rege.⁴⁰ The king’s subsequent concern for the dignity of his crown did nothing to reverse the adverse effect of a decision that, for the remainder of the medieval period, left the resolution of frontier disputes to the arbitration procedures of the March and to the ‘old indentures’ (cydfodau) between lordships in a situation alleviated only with the making of the ‘new indenture’ between crown and Marcher ofﬁcers in the reign of Henry Tudor, and ﬁnally resolved by ‘the shiring of the Marches’ under his successor.⁴¹ Still more telling of the difﬁculties now accumulating in the March were the problems encountered in prosecuting in the court of king’s bench pleas that arose from injuries done within Marcher lordships. Decidedly ominous signals were given as early as 1281 by the very magnates whom the king took to task ten years later: Clare refused to answer coram rege as he held his regality by conquest and would do nothing without ﬁrst consulting his peers of the realm who held similar liberties in the March; Humphrey de Bohun, earl of Hereford, found similar cause to insist that the king’s statutes had no place within his lands.⁴² Clare’s reaction in court may have been prompted not only by the particular problem in the March but by the manner in which royal attorneys had borne hard upon him in the quo warranto proceedings of the previous year for his usurpations of franchises in the county of Kent.⁴³ Providing an unpropitious early indication of a convergence of Marcher issues and those of the realm at large, Clare’s conception of a Marcher regality derived by conquest represented a deﬁant repudiation of the Bractonian theory propounded by royal attorneys that franchises in the realm of England were exercised only by delegation from the crown.⁴⁴ He would not be alone. Told later in proceedings on his Shropshire franchises that he claimed royal rights where no one could be king but the king himself, Edmund Mortimer would have been well aware that just beyoned the county boundary—extra comitatu—he was entrenched in an altogether different position.⁴⁵ The implications of the Marchers’ standpoint are revealed very clearly in successive proceedings brought coram rege by Roger Mortimer when the earl of Hereford was able to impede proceedings with the claim that pleas from the March were not prosecuted coram rege until the Marcher court had failed to deliver justice.⁴⁶ ⁴⁰ The Welsh Assize Roll 1277–1284, ed. J. C. Davies (Cardiff, 1940), 309; Smith, Llywelyn, 471. ⁴¹ Ibid., 132–3. ⁴² KB27/64, mm. 35, 50; Select Cases, ed. Sayles, i. 93 ff.; Cartae et Alia Munimenta quae ad Dominium de Glamorgancia Pertinent, ed. G. T. Clark, 6 vols. ( Talygarn, 1910), iii. 810–11. ⁴³ Placita de Quo Warranto, ed W. Illingworth and J. Caley (Record Commission, London, 1818), 337–41. ⁴⁴ Bracton on the Laws and Customs of England, II, ed. S. E. Thorne (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), 166–7. ⁴⁵ Placita de Quo Warranto, 675. ⁴⁶ Smith, ‘Legal Position’, 33–4.

The Common Lawyers and the Law of Wales

149

Nothing is more revealing than the contrast between the ordered procedures upon error that brought a case to the curia regis from Glamorgan in 1245 and the entirely abortive attempt to secure a comparable record from the lordship of Talgarth in 1290.⁴⁷ In land actions also—a genre of cases particularly relevant to what follows—the rolls of king’s bench and court of common pleas are laden with testimony, notably in prolonged litigation over the lordship of Elfael, to the extent to which process was hindered not only through recourse to normal common-law exceptions but on account of the difﬁculties encountered by the sheriff of an English county in executing the king’s writ in the March beyond his boundary.⁴⁸ For all the rhetoric of sovereignty, the reign of Edward I saw no broadening of the channels of justice to the March by the procedures of the common law but rather the reverse. By then the common lawyers found it exceedingly difﬁcult to penetrate the jurisdictional redoubt that the Marchers had created in their conception of ‘the law of Wales’. To the extent that royal justice was done upon appeal from the March it was served not upon a writ of error by the procedures of the common law but by petition to king in council or parliament. The two aspects of the ‘double consideration’ presented by the crown lands of Wales and the lordships of the March were combined together to the virtual exclusion of the Westminster courts. In relation to the March, it is thus impossible to disregard the extent to which the names of magnates conspicuous in their concern for the protection of their Marcher interests, quite apart from their English franchises subject to quo warranto inquiry, continue to recur in the record of the mounting political disaffection that came to a head in 1297 with the presentation of the Remonstrances. They are well represented at the gathering probably held in Edmund Mortimer’s estate at Cleobury Mortimer in Shropshire—a franchise subject to quo warranto proceedings just ﬁve years before—to formulate their grievances against the king. The names included Humphrey Bohun, earl of Hereford, Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk, Richard Fitzalan, earl of Arundel, John de Hastings, and Mortimer himself.⁴⁹ Reconciling Edward’s assertion of his sovereign authority in the March of Wales with the manner in which the common-law jurisdiction of the Westminster court became more circumscribed at this time underlines the broader relevance of K. B. McFarlane’s comment, prompted by his estimation of the king’s pursuit of dynastic interest in his dealings with the earls of England, that Edward ‘preferred masterfulness to the art of political management’.⁵⁰ It is the legacy of these crucial years in the history of the March that explains a great deal of the constraint upon process into Wales from the Westminster courts that concerned the common lawyers over the period from the ﬁfteenth even to the eighteenth century. ⁴⁷ Cartae, ed. Clark, ii. 547–53; Select Cases, ed. Sayles, ii. 5–6. ⁴⁸ Smith, ‘Legal Position’, 39–43. ⁴⁹ Documents Illustrating the Crisis of 1297–98 in England, ed. M. Prestwich, Camden Society, 4th ser., 24 (1980), 14; Davies, Lordship, 267–8. ⁵⁰ K. B. McFarlane, The Nobility of Late Medieval England (Oxford, 1973), 267.

150

J. Beverley Smith

Fortescue’s implicit sense of the transmission of a legal inheritance from a pristine Welsh kingship to the practice of his time needs to be modiﬁed so as to place an emphasis not on the role of the princes but on that of the Marcher beneﬁciaries of a regality that was theirs not by royal delegation but by ancient conquest.⁵¹ Coherent legal discourse broaching a historical explanation of process into Wales was ﬁrst offered, however, by Sir John Vaughan, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, in 1677.⁵² Considering Wales by analogy with other lands under the king’s dominion, Vaughan, though he took account of the effect of the Statute of Wales in creating a jurisdiction in the crown lands that effectively excluded the Westminster courts, conﬁrmed the essentially Marcher quality of the problem of ‘the law of Wales’ in the later medieval period. Vaughan found that there were only two categories of cases in which the Westminster courts had jurisdiction in Wales: one was the advowson of churches—cases of quare impedit, where the certiﬁcate of a bishop was required; and the other consisted of pleas concerning possession of an entire barony of the March. In examining the second category, Vaughan placed some weight upon an assize of novel disseisin brought coram rege in 1324 by William de Braose against Elizabeth de Burgh, lady of Clare, claiming possession of the lordship of Gower, a case in which judgement for the lady rested on an ‘act of parliament’.⁵³ The resolution of another Marcher case ﬁve years earlier by the judgement of the chancellor, justices of the king’s bench, the barons of the exchequer, and other magnates of the king’s council suggests that the Gower case, too, may have been resolved by an assembly of justices and magnates of the council.⁵⁴ But what survives, preserved by Anthony Fitzherbert, is a judgement by Geoffrey le Scrope, chief justice, establishing the principle that when a baron of the March was ousted of his entire barony, he should have remedy from the king by a writ of Chancery to the sheriff of the next adjoining English county.⁵⁵ Many of the elements in this action may be recognized in proceedings in the reign of Edward I, notably in the prolonged litigation over the lordship of Elfael, but it was only in Scrope’s judgement that the common lawyers ﬁrst identiﬁed a criterion by which a particular genre of Marcher cases could be brought coram rege and taken to judgement.⁵⁶ The two categories of cases recognized by Vaughan, conﬁrmed by search of the king’s bench rolls, were the sole exceptions to the limitation placed upon actions from Wales at common law. * ⁵¹ Smith, ‘Legal Position’, 50–1; above, n. 32. ⁵² J. Vaughan, ‘Concerning Process out of the Courts of Westminster into Wales of Late Times and How Anciently’, The Reports and Arguments of Sir John Vaughan (London, 1677), 395–420. ⁵³ Ibid., 403–12; Smith, ‘Legal Position’, 45–7. ⁵⁴ Ibid., 43–4. ⁵⁵ A. Fitzherbert, La Graunde Abridgement (London, 1565), ‘Assize’, ff. 86v–87. ⁵⁶ For Elfael, see above, n. 48.

The Common Lawyers and the Law of Wales

151

The limitations on the jurisdiction of the Westminster courts in Wales that, as has been argued in this study, crystallized in the reign of Edward I were to persist for several centuries. The Union legislation of 1536–42, by affording the Great Sessions a jurisdiction as full as that of the Westminster courts (though providing that writs of error were returnable before the justices of the king’s bench), only perpetuated those limitations.⁵⁷ Arguments in the king’s bench and common pleas in the seventeenth century over process out of the Westminster courts into Wales may be instanced in a decision of a majority of the judges in 1677, in a judgement at variance with Vaughan’s view, that writs of execution such as scire facias ran into Wales on a judgement at Westminster.⁵⁸ Further argument in the eighteenth century was driven by the lawyers of the king’s bench in their bid to send writs of latitat into Wales, the effect of which would be to secure a jurisdiction concurrent with that of the Great Sessions. The debate inspired Charles Pratt, later Lord Camden and lord chancellor, to offer in 1744 a substantial historical discourse which, like Vaughan’s work, constitutes a valuable contribution to Welsh legal historiography.⁵⁹ Uncertainty was ﬁnally dispelled by a judgement of king’s bench in 1779 ensuring that the limitations on the jurisdiction of the Westminster courts in Wales, long captured in the maxim ‘the king’s writ does not run into Wales’ (breve regis non currit in Walliam), were ﬁnally removed.⁶⁰ The legal legacy of that ancient Welsh kingdom for so long envisaged by the lawyers was at last laid to rest. Issue would soon be joined, moreover, on the future of the Welsh judicature that represented a second facet of a legal tradition that had its origins in the reign of Edward I. Tudor legislation had enacted that the courts of Great Sessions would follow the practices already established in the three counties of North Wales by the Statute of 1284.⁶¹ Thereafter the rolls of the four Welsh circuits recorded the initiation of actions by writs devised ‘by the common law of England and the Statute of Rhuddlan’, and a practice book of the later seventeenth century, embodying a text of the Statute of Wales, could describe ⁵⁷ SR, iii. 926 (34 and 35 Henry VIII, c. 26. § v): justices were to hold pleas of the crown ‘in as lardge and ample maner’ as the justices of the king’s bench, real and personal actions ‘in as large and ample maner’ as those of the common pleas. ⁵⁸ English Reports, lxxxvi. 912–14 (Whitrong v. Blaney); G. Parry, A Guide to the Records of the Court of Great Sessions in Wales (Aberystwyth, 1996), pp. xiv–xxii, cites the relevant actions. ⁵⁹ English Reports, xcv. 568–76 (Lampley v. Thomas); [C. Pratt], ‘A Discourse Against the Jurisdiction of the Court of King’s Bench over Wales by Process of Latitat’, in F. Hargrave (ed.), Collection of Tracts Relative to the Law of England (London, 1787), 378–423; for the authorship, D. E. C. Yale in Hale’s Prerogatives of the Crown, xxxviii, n. 4 (above, n. 36). For process of latitat, a writ summoning persons to answer in king’s bench, J. H. Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History, 4th edn. (London, 2002), 42. ⁶⁰ English Reports, xcix. 139 (Penry v. Jones). ⁶¹ SR, iii. 565, 927: 27 Henry VIII, c. 26, § vii, justice would be done ‘according to the laws and statutes of the realm and after such fourme and fashion as justice is used and ministred to the kinges subjectes within the three shires of North Wales’; 34 and 35 Henry VIII, c.26, § viii, ‘writtes and process shall be used in maner and forme as hathe been used before the justice in North Wales’.

152

J. Beverley Smith

an action of debt by the process of concessit solvere as one established ‘by the ancient custom of North Wales’.⁶² The interest of the Westminster lawyers in the jurisdictional order in Wales did not cease with their winning concurrent jurisdiction, and their concern combined with political inﬂuences at Westminster to bring the Great Sessions under review. Reports of successive inquiries in the early nineteenth century reﬂected, on the one hand, a broad opinion favourable to the continued existence of a suitably reformed Welsh judicature that was, in many instances, held to be equal in authority and efﬁcacy to the common-law courts in England.⁶³ On the other hand, the reports revealed an opinion urging the assimilation of the judicature of the Principality of Wales to that of the realm of England as a whole. The abolition of the Great Sessions in 1830 saw Welsh opinion deeply divided, the arguments for their dissolution countered by Welsh legal practitioners whose views were endorsed in society at large.⁶⁴ Already in the medieval period the Statute of Wales had become something of a charter to whose authority Welsh communities might appeal in resistance to the misdeeds of ofﬁcers ‘against the form of the Statute’.⁶⁵ The conqueror’s statute, seen even by F. W. Maitland as the work of a king who ‘thrusts the English laws upon Wales’, became embodied in a new conception of the custom of Wales.⁶⁶ The cessation of its ﬁnite embodiment in the form of the court of Great Sessions created the ﬁrst tremors of a resurgent national identity, in which reaction to the ﬁnal assimilation of Welsh legal institutions to those of the realm was joined with a concern for the Welsh language in an early augury of the formative inﬂuences of modern Welsh democratic society.⁶⁷ ⁶² e.g., NLW, Great Sessions, 18. 1 et seq.; R. Vaughan, Practica Walliae (London, 1672), 12–13,101–49; concessit solvere was not peculiar to Wales: Smith, ‘Statute of Wales’, 49, n. 78. ⁶³ Parliamentary Papers of the Select Committee on the Administration of Justice in Wales: PP, 1817, IV; PP, 1820, II; PP, 1821, IV. ⁶⁴ First Report of the Commission Appointed to Inquire into the Practice and Proceedings of the Superior Courts of Law, 1829: PP, 1829, ix. 35–69, 380–483. ⁶⁵ Smith, ‘Statute of Wales’, 130–2, 153. ⁶⁶ F. Pollock and F. W. Maitland, A History of English Law, 2nd edn. (Cambridge, 1968), i. 90. ⁶⁷ M. Ellis Jones, ‘The Confusion of Babel? The Welsh Language, Law Courts and Legislation in the Nineteenth Century’, in G. H. Jenkins (ed.), The Welsh Language and its Social Domains 1801–1911 (Cardiff, 2000), 588–94.

11 Lordship in the British Isles, c.1320–c.1360: The Ebb Tide of the English Empire? Brendan Smith

From a slave he became a lord, from a subject a prince.¹

The Kilkenny chronicler John Clyn, in recording the death of the chief Laoighseach Ó Mordha (Lysagh O’More) in 1342, portrayed him as a worthy and successful adversary of the English in the southern midlands of Ireland, while leaving no doubt that his rise to power represented an affront to the natural order of things. In fact, Ó Mordha’s career was not the rags-to-riches tale presented by Clyn: his family had exercised authority in Laois long before the arrival of the English, and as late as the early fourteenth century held much of western Laois as free tenants of their Mortimer lords.² By the 1270s the Irish of the midlands had begun to pose a security challenge to the settlers and by the middle of the fourteenth century the Uí Mhorda had succeeded in regaining much of their pre-invasion patrimony.³ Behind Clyn’s hyperbole is a story familiar to students of lordship in the British Isles in the ﬁrst half of the fourteenth century; the rise to unexpected heights of a man whose ancestry already bestowed status and encouraged ambition. The Uí Mhorda lands had a strategic signiﬁcance with few parallels in the British Isles, and Laoighseach’s path crossed those of some of the most ¹ ‘de servo dominus, de subjecto princeps effectus’: The Annals of Ireland by Friar John Clyn and Thady Dowling, ed. R. Butler (Dublin: Irish Archaeological Society, 1849), 30; E. Curtis, A History of Medieval Ireland, 2nd edn. (London, 1938), 213. ² F. J. Byrne, ‘The Trembling Sod: Ireland in 1169’, in NHI, ii. 27; C. Ó Cléirigh, ‘The Impact of the Anglo-Normans in Laois’, in P. Lane and W. Nolan (eds.), Laois: History and Society (Dublin, 1999), 160–82; E. O’Byrne, War, Politics and the Irish of Leinster, 1156–1606 (Dublin, 2003), 18–19. ³ K. Nicholls, Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland in the Middle Ages (Dublin, 1972), 15, 174; C. Ó Cléirigh, ‘The Problems of Defence: A Regional Case-study’, in J. Lydon (ed.), Law and Disorder in Thirteenth-century Ireland: The Dublin Parliament of 1297 (Dublin, 1997), 25–56; G. H. Orpen, Ireland under the Normans, 1169–1333, 4 vols. (Oxford, 1911–20), iii. 103–7; A. J. Otway-Ruthven, ‘The Medieval County of Kildare’, IHS, 11 (1959), 181–99.

154

Brendan Smith

ambitious men of his generation.⁴ His rise to pre-eminence among the Irish of the midlands was achieved at the expense not only of the rival south Leinster dynasty of Mac Giolla Pádraig but also of his English lord, Roger Mortimer. Edward Bruce’s victory over Mortimer at Kells in Meath in December 1315 and subsequent wasting of English settlements further south suited Ó Mordha’s local ambitions very well, and it was with the Irish of Laois that the Scots wintered in 1315–16.⁵ The defeat of the Scots in 1318 left Laoighseach unscathed: in the same year Mortimer—now lieutenant of Ireland—attempted to harness his local authority by appointing him guardian of the Mortimer midland estates centred on Dunamase. Ó Mordha’s attacks on English communities in Laois and neighbouring Carlow continued, and although he was prepared to enter the service of the Dublin government again in 1332, he remained a threat to the settlers until he was murdered by one of his own servants in 1342.⁶ In the violent circumstances of his death as in the self-aggrandizement which typiﬁed his life, Laoighseach Ó Mordha had much in common with two leading ﬁgures in the history of the British Isles with whom he had personal contact in the 1310s: his overlord, Roger Mortimer of Wigmore; and Edward Bruce, earl of Carrick. At the time of his dealings with Laoighseach, Mortimer was a baron of the second rank with estates in the Welsh March and Ireland: by the time of his execution in 1330 he had overthrown King Edward II, had himself created ﬁrst earl of March, and had ruled England for three years.⁷ In similar fashion, Edward Bruce added spectacularly to the advantages already bestowed upon him by birth into a well-established baronial family in Scotland. Through loyalty to his older brother, Robert, he acquired the lordship of Galloway before 1309 and was made earl of Carrick in 1313. In 1315, a year after playing a key role at Bannockburn, Edward was not only recognized as heir to the Scottish throne but was also inaugurated as king of Ireland.⁸ The indignation expressed by contemporary chroniclers in the British Isles at the rise of men such as Ó Mordha, Mortimer, and Bruce, reﬂects unease ⁴ For the strategic importance of the Irish midlands see A. P. Smyth, Celtic Leinster: Towards an Historical Geography of Early Irish Civilization .. 500–1500 (Dublin, 1982), and the review thereof in K. Nicholls, ‘The Land of the Leinstermen’, Peritia, 3 (1984), 535–58. ⁵ For the Bruce invasion see R. Frame, ‘The Bruces in Ireland’, in his Ireland and Britain 1170–1450 (London, 1998), 71–98; C. McNamee, The Wars of the Bruces: Scotland, England and Ireland, 1306–1328 (East Linton, 1997), 166–205. ⁶ For Laoighseach’s career see O’Byrne, War, Politics, and the Irish of Leinster, 58–102. For Dunamase see T. McNeill, Castles in Ireland: Feudal Power in a Gaelic World (London, 1997), 33–4; D. Sweetman, The Medieval Castles of Ireland (Cork, 1999), 41–3, 63–4. ⁷ I. Mortimer, The Greatest Traitor: The Life of Sir Roger Mortimer, Ist Earl of March, Ruler of England, 1327–1330 (London, 2003); P. Dryburgh, ‘The Career of Roger Mortimer, First Earl of March (c.1287–1330)’, Ph.D. thesis (Bristol, 2002). ⁸ ODNB, viii. 290–2. For Bruce as king of Ireland see S. Duffy, ‘The Bruce Invasion of Ireland: A Revised Itinerary and Chronology’, in id. (ed.), Robert the Bruce’s Irish Wars: The Invasions of Ireland 1306–1329 (Stroud, 2002), 9–43; The Register of Nicholas Fleming, Archbishop of Armagh 1404–1416, ed. B. Smith (Dublin, 2003), no. 170.

Lordship in the British Isles, c.1320–c.1360

155

about a situation in which claiming, and in some instances acquiring, title and authority not bestowed by birth was such a regular occurrence.⁹ Most spectacularly, Robert Bruce, earl of Carrick, had himself crowned king of Scotland in 1306 and within six years had made this claim a reality.¹⁰ Edward Balliol, crowned king of Scotland at Scone in 1332, was at least the son of a king, if a deposed one, but failed to have his authority recognized.¹¹ No one doubted Edward III’s claim to the throne of England—even if he had been obliged to assume real power by means of a violent coup in 1330—but his adoption of the title king of France in 1340 was far more problematic.¹² General anxiety about just how high an ambitious lord might set his sights lay behind the repeated rumours about the intentions of the ﬁrst earl of Desmond in Ireland. Historians have treated with due scepticism the accusations made by juries of English settlers in Munster in the 1330s and 1340s that Maurice ﬁtz Thomas aimed on more than one occasion to have himself crowned king of Ireland, but the fact that such a serious charge could be made and repeated reﬂects widespread nervousness about changing patterns of authority throughout the British Isles.¹³ The presence of so many kings and rumours of kings among the English and the Scots may also have encouraged the reappearance of kingly title and inauguration ceremonies among the native Irish. Gaelic sources talk in terms of a deliberate revival of ancient practices recently abandoned, but we must resist the temptation to imagine Irish leaders engaged in misty-eyed pursuit of a world they had lost.¹⁴ There was nothing antiquarian in Domnall Ó Néill’s (Donal O’Neill) links with the Bruces, and his appeal to history in the Remonstrance he sent to the pope in 1317 served the speciﬁc purpose of transferring his family’s ancient ⁹ For Rees Davies’s account of Mortimer see ODNB, xxxix. 396–402. For recent discussion of contemporary and later views, R. M. Haines, King Edward II: Edward of Caernarfon, his Life, his Reign, and its Aftermath, 1284–1330 (Montreal, 2003), 177–218. Irish historians have tended to be kinder to Edward Bruce than their Scottish equivalents: S. Duffy, ‘The Bruce Brothers and the Irish Sea world, 1306–29’, Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies, 21 (1991), 55–86; Frame, ‘Bruce Invasion’, 71–82. By contrast see A. A. M. Duncan, ‘The Scots’ Invasion of Ireland, 1315’, in Davies, British Isles, 100–17, esp. 114. ¹⁰ A. Grant, ‘Fourteenth-century Scotland’, in M. Jones (ed.), The New Cambridge Medieval History. Volume VI, c.1300– c. 1415 (Cambridge, 2000), 348–54. ¹¹ M. Penman, David II, 1329–71 (East Linton, 2004), 48–9; R. Nicholson, Edward III and the Scots (Oxford, 1965), 57–118. For the Dupplin Moor campaign see C. J. Rogers, War Cruel and Sharp: English Strategy under Edward III, 1327–60 (Woodbridge, 2000), 10–26. For Balliol’s career, ODNB, iii. 602–5. ¹² M. Prestwich, Plantagenet England 1225–1360 (Oxford, 2005), 220–4, 307–10; W. M. Ormrod, ‘A Problem of Precedence: Edward III, the Double Monarchy, and the Royal Style’, in J. S. Bothwell (ed.), The Age of Edward III (Woodbridge, 2001), 133–54; C. Taylor, ‘Edward III and the Plantagenet Claim to the French Throne’, ibid., 155–70. ¹³ J. Lydon, The Lordship of Ireland in the Middle Ages, 2nd edn. (Dublin, 2003), 128–31; R. Frame, ‘Power and Society in the Lordship of Ireland, 1272–1377’, in his Ireland and Britain, 215–18. ¹⁴ K. Simms, From Kings to Warlords: The Changing Political Structure of Gaelic Ireland in the Later Middle Ages (Woodbridge, 1987), 21–40.

156

Brendan Smith

claim to the kingship of Ireland to Edward Bruce.¹⁵ Nor were Edward II, Edward III, and Edward Bruce the only kings claming overlordship over Laoighseach Ó Mordha in the same period: the Uí Mhorda were also deeply involved in, and affected by, the ambitions of the Mic Mhurchadha (Mac Murroughs) to revivify their claims to kingship in Leinster, claims which under Domnall son of Art Mac Murchadha in the late 1320s, and Muirchertach Mac Murchadha in the early 1350s, achieved some kind of reality.¹⁶ The British Isles, it seemed, was becoming once more a region of many kings. This lends weight to Rees Davies’s assertion that the period under discussion in this paper witnessed ‘the ebb tide of the English empire’.¹⁷ Culturally, economically, and politically, he argued, England and Englishness were in retreat within the British Isles to such an extent that by 1343 the ‘administrative and legal uniformity’ which Edward I had seemed on the point of imposing in 1305 had evaporated, leaving instead ‘disaggregation and dissolution . . . separation . . . not integration’.¹⁸ In explaining why this was so, Davies declined to identify the transfer of English resources across the Channel as of paramount importance, while acknowledging that the opening of hostilities with France in 1337 marked ‘a fundamental reorientation in England’s territorial and political ambitions’.¹⁹ Success against France, after all, brought renewed prestige for the English and helped to unite king and nobility: ‘From 1330 to 1369’, Scott Waugh has remarked, ‘England witnessed an extraordinary fulﬁlment of the potential of the medieval state, founded on cooperation and trust between the king, the landed elite, and the church.’²⁰ Why this unusually happy state of affairs did not result in at least the maintenance, if not the extension, of English domination of the British Isles is an intriguing question. It should at once be noted that for most of the period under discussion large swathes of southern Scotland were in English hands and the Scots regularly paid tribute to the king of England—realities ¹⁵ J. R. S. Phillips, ‘The Irish Remonstrance of 1317: An International Perspective’, IHS, 27 (1990–1), 112–29; id., ‘The Remonstrance Revisited: England and Ireland in the Early Fourteenth Century’, in T. B. Fraser and K. Jeffrey (eds.), Men, Women and War: Historical Studies XVIII (Dublin, 1993), 13–27. Domnall Ó Néill styled himself ‘king of the Irish of Ulster’ in a letter of 1315, and the same style was used on his seal by his son and successor Aodh (d. 1366). Register of Nicholas Fleming, ed. Smith, no. 170; Simms, From Kings to Warlords, 36–7. ¹⁶ R. Frame, ‘Two Kings in Leinster: The Crown and the Mic Mhurchadha in the Fourteenth Century’, in T. Barry, R. Frame, and K. Simms (eds.), Colony and Frontier in Medieval Ireland: Essays Presented to J. F. Lydon (London, 1995), 155–76; id., ‘English Ofﬁcials and Irish Chiefs in the Fourteenth Century’, in his Ireland and Britain, 249–78; O’Byrne, War, Politics and the Irish of Leinster, 87–102. ¹⁷ Davies, Empire, ch. 7. ¹⁸ R. R. Davies, ‘The Failure of the First British Empire? England’s Relations with Ireland, Scotland and Wales’, in N. Saul (ed.), England in Europe 1066–1453 (London, 1994), 121–32, quotation at 128; Davies, Empire, 187–8. ¹⁹ Davies, Empire, 178. ²⁰ S. L. Waugh, England in the Reign of Edward III (Cambridge, 1991), 4. See also W. M. Ormrod, ‘England: Edward II and Edward III’, in Jones (ed.), New Cambridge Medieval History VI, 273–96.

Lordship in the British Isles, c.1320–c.1360

157

which should discourage the painting of too bleak a picture of English fortunes. On the other hand, the fact that this was a period of such extreme difﬁculty for the Scottish monarchy makes the limited and temporary nature of English advance in Scotland even more noticeable.²¹ Given these considerations, it seems appropriate to ask whether something even more profound than the ﬁrst English empire was ebbing within the British Isles in the middle of the fourteenth century; something as fundamental as the prevailing pattern of lordship. Should we, as Robin Frame has urged for Ireland, leave aside notions of failure and decline in our analysis and pursue other lines of enquiry concerning the structure of society and its regional character?²² To extend this approach to the British Isles as a whole in the mid-fourteenth century, and to focus on developments in the exercise of lordship in particular, is well suited to a book celebrating the legacy of Rees Davies. Such a change of focus at least serves to remove the need to imagine English kings fundamentally reordering their political priorities in the British Isles in the face of the undoubted set-backs of the early fourteenth century. Regardless of their own difﬁculties in gaining or retaining their thrones, kings of England saw little or no room for kings in the rest of the British Isles, and worked to undermine the claims of their competitors. Edward III’s recognition of Edward Balliol as king of Scots from 1332 and of David II from 1356 was ambiguous, and the principle that the king of England was overlord of the ruler of Scotland was never conceded by the English.²³ In Ireland native claims to kingship were even less acceptable and from the mid-fourteenth century a determined attempt to undermine them and the authority they implied over lesser lineages was underway. The most powerful Irish lords were now encouraged to see themselves ﬁrst and foremost as heads of their own lineages or ‘captains of their nations’—a practice which had already been implemented for the more unruly settler families—and Edward III’s recognition of Diarmait Mac Murchadha’s (Dermot Mac Murrough) authority in 1367, by allowing him to use the title ‘the Mac Murchadha’, was an extension of the same policy of negating royal aspirations among the Irish.²⁴ ²¹ For the 1320s as ‘a high-point in the history of the Scottish monarchy’ see N. H. Reid, ‘Crown and Community under Robert I’, in A. Grant and K. J. Stringer (eds.), Medieval Scotland: Crown, Lordship and Community. Essays Presented to G. W. S. Barrow (Edinburgh, 1993), 203–22, quotation at 222. The same decade also marked ‘the climax and collapse of the Scottish hegemony in the British Isles.’ McNamee, Wars of the Bruces, 234; A. Grant, ‘Scottish Foundations: Late Medieval Contributions’, in id. and K. J. Stringer (eds.), Uniting the Kingdom? The Making of British History (London, 1995), 97–110, esp. 101–5. ²² R. Frame, ‘English Political Culture in Later Medieval Ireland’, The History Review, 13 (2002), 1–11; id., ‘The ‘‘Failure’’ of the First English Conquest of Ireland’, in his Ireland and Britain, 1–14. ²³ M. Prestwich, ‘England and Scotland during the Wars of Independence’, in M. Jones and M. Vale (eds.), England and her Neighbours 1066–1453: Essays in Honour of Pierre Chaplais (London, 1989), 181–98; B. Webster, Medieval Scotland: The Making of an Identity (Basingstoke, 1997), 82–5. ²⁴ Simms, From Kings to Warlords, 36–9; Frame, ‘English Ofﬁcials and Irish Chiefs’, 249–78; J. Lydon, ‘The Middle Nation’, in id. (ed.), The English in Medieval Ireland (Dublin, 1984), 1–26; S. Duffy, ‘The Problem of Degeneracy’, in Lydon (ed.), Law and Disorder, 87–106; C. Maginn, ‘English Marcher Lordships in South Dublin in the Late Middle Ages’ IHS, 34 (2004–5), 113–36.

158

Brendan Smith

Kingship was not the only contested form of lordship in the British Isles in the early fourteenth century, though its travails set the tone elsewhere. To look only at the highest level of the nobility, the years 1308–37 saw the creation of a large number of new earls by Edward II and Edward III, but this was hardly a period of increased prestige for either the English monarchy or nobility: in England alone the execution of the earl of March in 1330 brought to nine the number of earls to die violent deaths since 1312.²⁵ The king of England’s sphere of patronage included Ireland and the nobility of the lordship also endured traumatic change in this period.²⁶ Between 1315 and 1329 ﬁve new earldoms were added to the existing earldom of Ulster but, as in England, this did not bring stability.²⁷ John de Bermingham, earl of Louth, was murdered by his tenants in 1329 and in 1333 the same fate befell William de Burgh, earl of Ulster, who had been allowed to assume the family title on reaching his maturity in 1327.²⁸ Edward III’s distrust of, and frequent hostility towards, the families which held the three remaining Irish earldoms of Ormond, Kildare, and Desmond—Carrick lapsed in 1328 as did Louth in 1329—tainted as they were by various degrees of association with Roger Mortimer and in possession of liberty rights which he found unacceptable, postpones the date at which it can be said that the king and his nobles worked together in unity and harmony beyond not only 1330 or 1337 but also 1341.²⁹ Not until 1349 did Edward make ﬁnal peace with the most wayward of his Irish earls, Desmond.³⁰ Only then did the legacy of Roger Mortimer cease ﬁnally to colour Edward III’s relations with the nobility throughout all his lands, and the restoration of the earldom of March, which included large amounts of land in Ireland, to Roger’s grandson and namesake followed in 1354.³¹ ²⁵ The other eight were Cornwall, Gloucester, Hereford, Lancaster, Carlisle, Winchester, Arundel, and Kent. M. McKisack, The Fourteenth Century, 1307–1399 (Oxford, 1959), 1–104; A. Tuck, Crown and Nobility 1272–1461: Political Conﬂict in Late Medieval England (Oxford, 1985), 50–119; M. Prestwich, The Three Edwards: War and State in England 1272–1377 (London, 1980), 79–114, 148–50; Waugh, England in the Reign of Edward III, 117–35; C. Given-Wilson, The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages: The Fourteenth-Century Political Community (London, 1987), 29–47; J. S. Bothwell, ‘Edward III and the ‘‘New Nobility’’: Largesse and Limitation in Fourteenth-century England’, EHR, 112 (1997), 111–40. ²⁶ For what follows see R. Frame, English Lordship in Ireland 1318–1361 (Oxford, 1982). ²⁷ The earldoms were Carrick, Kildare, Louth, Ormond, and Desmond. J. R. S. Phillips, ‘The Mission of John de Hothum to Ireland, 1315–1316’, in J. Lydon (ed.), England and Ireland in the Later Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of Jocelyn Otway-Ruthven (Dublin, 1981), 62–85; ODNB, ix. 124–5, 144–5; xix. 826–8, 836–8; A. J. Otway-Ruthven, A History of Medieval Ireland (London, 1968), 238–46. ²⁸ B. Smith, Colonisation and Conquest in Medieval Ireland: The English of Louth, 1170–1330 (Cambridge, 1999), 112–21; Orpen, Ireland under the Normans, iv. 207–49. ²⁹ ‘The years until the parliamentary crisis of 1341 form a postlude to the reign of Edward II and indicate the formidable problems inherited by Edward III.’ W. M. Ormrod, The Reign of Edward III: Crown and Political Society in England 1327–1377, p. xiii, also 95–110. R. Frame, ‘English Policies and Anglo-Irish Attitudes in the Crisis of 1341–2’, in his Ireland and Britain, 113–30. ³⁰ Frame, English Lordship in Ireland, 196–294. ³¹ Waugh, England in the Reign of Edward III, 122–3; J. R. S. Phillips, ‘The Anglo-Norman Nobility’, in Lydon (ed.), English in Medieval Ireland, 87–104; Prestwich, Plantagenet England,

Lordship in the British Isles, c.1320–c.1360

159

If instability and tension characterized lordship in its highest forms in the lands of the king of England the situation was even more extreme in Scotland, where the circumstances of Robert I’s accession to the throne and continuing war with England had enormous repercussions for the nature of authority, both royal and noble.³² Both Robert I and his son and heir, David II, were conservative in their approach to the highest ranks of the Scottish nobility, but the extraordinary extinction rate among Scotland’s earls through natural or violent death would, in any case, have made royal intervention necessary.³³ Defeat of those loyal to the Bruce dynasty at Dupplin Moor in August 1332 and Halidon Hill in the following July involved the deaths of no fewer than eight Scottish earls, while defeat at Neville’s Cross in 1346 meant not only captivity in England for the king but also death for two more earls and imprisonment for another four.³⁴ Such was the rapid turnover of those holding earldoms in fourteenth-century Scotland that the Bruce kings felt the need to add only three new titles—Moray in 1312, Wigtown in 1341, and Douglas in 1358—to the ten which already existed.³⁵ Such conservatism hid some important developments in Scottish lordship. The creation of the earldom of Douglas in 1358 was the ﬁrst occasion on which the link between title and provincial landholding was broken in the history of Scottish earldoms.³⁶ A more general loss of respect for traditional forms of authority within the political elite is suggested by the readiness of William Douglas, who had gained power in the far south through military success against the English rather than by membership of an ancient comital family, to forgo the title of earl of Atholl in 1342 in return for recognition by the king as lord 281; J. S. Bothwell, Edward III and the English Peerage: Royal Patronage, Social Mobility and Political Control in Fourteenth-century England (Woodbridge, 2004), 15–109. ³² For an optimistic view of late medieval Scottish politics, based on a comparison with England, see A. Grant, ‘Crown and Nobility in Late Medieval Britain’, in R. A. Mason (ed.), Scotland and England 1286–1815 (Edinburgh, 1987), 34–59. An alternative assessment is M. Brown, ‘Scotland Tamed: Kings and Magnates in Late Medieval Scotland: A Review of Recent Work’, Innes Review, 45 (1994), 120–46. Theoretical limitations on the late medieval Scottish monarchy resulting from the nature of Robert I’s accession are discussed in E. Cowan, ‘Identity, Freedom and the Declaration of Arbroath’, in D. Broun, R. J. Finlay, and M. Lynch (eds.), Image and Identity: The Making and Re-making of Scotland Through the Ages (Edinburgh, 1998), 38–68. ³³ Barrow, Robert Bruce (Edinburgh, 2005), 351–80; R. Nicholson, Scotland: The Later Middle Ages (Edinburgh, 1974), 109–13; Penman, David II, 14–36; H. L. MacQueen, ‘Scotland: Politics, Government and Law’, in S. H. Rigby (ed.), A Companion to Britain in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 2003), 298–300. ³⁴ Nicholson, Edward III and the Scots, 83–5, 125–9, 140–8; Clifford, War Sharp and Cruel, 48–77; B. Webster, ‘Scotland Without a King, 1329–1341’, in Grant and Stringer (eds.), Medieval Scotland, 223–38, esp. 224–7; Penman, David II, 76–116. ‘The highest grade of Scottish society may fairly be described as in a constant state of ﬂux’: A. Grant, ‘Earls and Earldoms in Late Medieval Scotland (c.1310–1460)’, in J. Bossy and P. Jupp (eds.), Essays Presented to Michael Roberts (Belfast, 1976), 25–40, quotation at 26. ³⁵ Grant, ‘Earls and Earldoms’, 35–7. ³⁶ M. Brown, The Black Douglases: War and Lordship in Late Medieval Scotland, 1300–1455 (East Linton, 1998), 43–9.

160

Brendan Smith

of Liddesdale, where his power lay.³⁷ To the west, Eóin Mac Domhnaill (John Mac Donald) showed no interest in being made an earl, even after reaching a concord with David II in 1343 which recognized his territorial gains over recent years. He preferred instead the title ‘lord of the Isles’ which he is ﬁrst recorded as using in a letter of 1335 to Edward III promising support for Edward Balliol.³⁸ So strong was David II’s disdain for his titled nobility by the 1360s that he did not seek to raise any of the new men he favoured in that decade to the rank of earl, and used his victory over a rebellion led by the earls of March, Douglas, and Strathearn in 1363 not only to curb the power of these men but also to reduce the number of earls in total.³⁹ Enough has been said to support the obvious point that the ﬁrst half of the fourteenth century witnessed serious challenges to existing political structures throughout the British Isles. To move beyond this and attempt to identify ‘British Isles’ responses or trends is to tread on very uneven and treacherous ground. Cynthia Neville has recently argued that ‘patterns of lordship in medieval Scotland cannot easily be reduced to generalizations’ and the same is true for the British Isles as a whole.⁴⁰ In Gaelic Ireland some ancient provincial families, such as the Uí Néill (O’Neills) in Ulster and to a lesser extent the Mic Mhurchadha (Mac Murroughs) in Leinster, succeeded in the middle of the fourteenth century in establishing dominance over smaller families; but others, such as the Uí Bhriain (O’Briens) in Thomond and the Uí Chonchobhair (O’Connors) in Connacht, failed to do so.⁴¹ In the English lordships while the ﬁrst earl of Desmond extended his authority over other settler families such as the le Poers and Barrys this was a less noticeable feature of developments in the more densely settled earldoms of Kildare and Kilkenny.⁴² There, as in the royal shires of the east coast, a tradition of gentry independence already existed which tempered noble ³⁷ Brown, Black Douglases, 38–40; M. Brown, ‘The Development of Scottish Border Lordship, 1332–58’, Historical Research, 70 (1997), 1–22. ³⁸ R. A. McDonald, The Kingdom of the Isles: Scotland’s Western Seaboard, c.1100 –c.1336 (East Linton, 1997), 187–9. ³⁹ B. Webster, ‘David II and the Government of Fourteenth-century Scotland’, TRHS, 5th ser., 16 (1966), 115–30; S. Boardman, The Early Stewart Kings: Robert II and Robert III, 1371–1406 (East Linton, 1996), 1–38; Brown, Black Douglases, 33–52; Nicholson, Scotland, 164–83; Penman, David II, 195–427; A. Grant, Independence and Nationhood: Scotland 1306–1469 (Edinburgh, 1984), 174–8. ⁴⁰ C. J. Neville, Medieval Lordship in Native Scotland: The Earldoms of Strathearn and Lennox, c.1140–1365 (Dublin, 2005), 16. ⁴¹ O’Byrne, War, Politics and the Irish of Leinster, 87–102; K. Simms, ‘ ‘‘The King’s Friend’’: O Neill, the Crown and the Earldom of Ulster’, in Lydon (ed.), England and Ireland, 214–36; A. Nic Ghiollamhaith, ‘Kings and Vassals in Later Medieval Ireland: The Uí Bhriain and the MicConmara in the Fourteenth Century’, in Barry et al. (eds.), Colony and Frontier, 201–16; Nicholls, Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland, 144–7. ⁴² K. Waters, ‘The Earls of Desmond in the Fourteenth Century’, Ph.D. thesis (Durham, 2004); C. Parker, ‘Paterfamilias and Parentela: The le Poer Lineage in Fourteenth-century Waterford’, PRIA, 95 C (1995), 93–117; The Pipe Roll of Cloyne, ed. P. Mac Cotter and K. Nicholls (Cloyne, 1996); J. A. Watt, ‘The Anglo-Irish Colony Under Strain, 1327–99’, in NHI, ii. 358–62.

Lordship in the British Isles, c.1320–c.1360

161

ambitions, and gentry links to the crown in places such as Louth and Meath were further strengthened by their employment as keepers and justices of the peace.⁴³ In later historiography as in contemporary records, this signiﬁcant development in the history of lordship in Ireland looms much less large than the issue of absenteeism. After 1333 two-thirds of English-controlled lands were in the hands of absentees, and Edward III’s thoughts about his responsibilities in Ireland came to be dominated by the security implications of this situation.⁴⁴ Both absenteeism and attempts to eliminate it worked to the advantage of that same section of settler society in Ireland which complained most loudly about its evils. The absence of great lords facilitated the ascent to local power of local families in lordships such as Trim and so, in the end, did the pressure placed by the crown on absentees either to reside in Ireland or to sell their lands to local settlers, a process which gathered momentum from the early 1360s.⁴⁵ Absenteeism became a more prominent feature of lordship throughout the British Isles in the middle of the fourteenth century but, before putting too much weight on this apparent element of British Isles shared experience, it is important to remember that the meaning of absenteeism could differ from place to place and time to time. In the Welsh March, for instance, great lords were absent most of the time, but did take care to visit their estates regularly. This, combined with the absence of those urgent security considerations which typiﬁed the situation in Ireland, meant that the crown took a relaxed view of the situation.⁴⁶ As in Irish liberties held by absentees, there was scope for ofﬁce-holding by local men of rank in the Marcher lordships, but a marked shift in authority from the great lords to those below them post-dates the fourteenth century.⁴⁷ In Scotland the rupture of the historic link between title and territory under the Bruce kings led to the appearance for the ﬁrst time of absenteeism in the north of the kingdom, with the local power vacuum being ﬁlled not by gentry groups but rather by families of settler stock such as the Frasers and Grants which, over time, evolved into clans.⁴⁸ This was but one expression of the resurgence of Gaelic ideas of lordship in Highland Scotland, and it is signiﬁcant that even ⁴³ B. Smith, ‘A County Community in Early Fourteenth-century Ireland: The Case of Louth’, EHR, 108 (1993), 561–88; R. Frame, ‘ ‘‘Les Engleys nées en Irlande’’: The English Political Identity in Medieval Ireland’, and id., ‘The Judicial Powers of the Medieval Irish Keepers of the Peace’, both in his Ireland and Britain, 131–50, 301–18. ⁴⁴ Lydon, Lordship of Ireland, 134–8; Frame, English Lordship in Ireland, 52–74; R. R. Davies, ‘Lordship or Colony?’, in Lydon (ed.), English in Medieval Ireland, 142–60. ⁴⁵ Frame, English Lordship in Ireland, 19–20, 57–60, 68–72. ⁴⁶ Davies, Conquest, 395–7; Davies, Lordship, 48–59; id., ‘Frontier Arrangements in Fragmented Societies: Ireland and Wales’, in R. Bartlett and A. Mackay (eds.), Medieval Frontier Societies (Oxford, 1989), 77–100. ⁴⁷ Davies, Lordship, 203–4, 228, and at 423: ‘The story of the fourteenth-century squirearchy cannot be comprehended under ‘‘rise of the gentry’’.’ ⁴⁸ Grant, ‘Scottish foundations’, 101–5.

162

Brendan Smith

the heir to the Scottish throne, Robert Stewart, was employing ‘caterans’ (kerne, cethern = billeted mercenaries) to establish his control in Atholl and Badenoch in the 1340s and 1350s.⁴⁹ Absenteeism was not a feature of lordship in southern Scotland, but the new war-oriented lordships which developed there for the ﬁrst time in the early fourteenth century served to deter the appearance of a coherent, articulate, gentry voice.⁵⁰ Lordship in England had long been predominantly absentee in character by the fourteenth century and it is the presence of magnate estates, rather than magnates themselves, which is central to the continuing debates about the political role of the county and the relative strength in different localities of gentry communities, on the one hand, and noble afﬁnities, on the other.⁵¹ England has been described as ‘very largely a locally oriented and self-regulating society, marrying delegated royal authority with regional lordship to deal with its own political concerns by its own standards’, and Gerald Harriss has argued that the operation of lordship within political society became more complex after 1350.⁵² Certainly the political community expanded to include new groups in the fourteenth century. Christian Liddy has argued persuasively that urban elites must feature more prominently in discussion about this community, and their increasing prominence in parliament was mirrored by that of another new group, the lawyers.⁵³ There is no doubt that some evidence for a similar broadening of the political community in the fourteenth century can also be found in Scotland and Ireland, but it would be difﬁcult to sustain a convincing argument that this was the key to understanding the changing nature of lordship in the British Isles as a whole at this time. The British Isles as a whole did, however, feel the impact of developments in English royal lordship under Edward III. Mark Ormrod’s observation that the ⁴⁹ W. McLeod, Divided Gaels: Gaelic Cultural Identities in Scotland and Ireland c.1200 –c.1650 (Oxford, 2004), 14–54; Boardman, Early Stewart Kings, 12–14, 83–8. The origins of kerne in Ireland are discussed in K. Simms, ‘Gaelic Warfare in the Middle Ages’, in T. Bartlett and K. Jeffrey (eds.), A Military History of Ireland (Cambridge, 1996), 99–115. ⁵⁰ R. Frame, The Political Development of the British Isles, 1100–1400 (Oxford, 1990), 190–3; Brown, ‘Development of Scottish Border Lordship’, 11–22. ⁵¹ For absenteeism, see W. M. Ormrod, Political Life in Medieval England, 1300–1450 (London, 1995), 41. A forceful restatement of the importance of the county/gentry nexus is P. Coss, The Origins of the English Gentry (Cambridge, 2003), 202–15. The classic assertion of continued noble pre-eminence is C. Carpenter, ‘Gentry and Community in Medieval England’, Journal of British Studies, 33 (1994), 340–80. ⁵² G. L. Harriss, ‘The Dimensions of Politics’, in R. H. Britnell and A. J. Pollard (eds.), The McFarlane Legacy: Studies in Late Medieval Politics and Society (Stroud, 1995), 1–20, quotation at 7; id., ‘Political Society and the Growth of Government in Late Medieval England’, P&P, 138 (1993), 28–57. Harriss refutes the traditional view of the history of the English state in the late middle ages as ‘an ebb tide before the next forward surge under the Tudors’; quotation at 28. ⁵³ C. Liddy, War, Politics and Finance in Late Medieval English Towns: Bristol, York and the Crown, 1350–1400 (Woodbridge, 2005), 1–18, 140–89; R. Goddard, Lordship and Medieval Urbanisation: Coventry, 1043–1355 (Woodbridge, 2004), 276–89. For the legal profession see A. Musson, Medieval Law in Context: The Growth of Legal Consciousness from Magna Carta to the Peasants’ Revolt (Manchester, 2001), 36–83, 184–216; A. Musson and W. M. Ormrod, The Evolution of English Justice: Law, Politics and Society in the Fourteenth Century (London, 1999).

Lordship in the British Isles, c.1320–c.1360

163

continental empire of his ancestors which the king was in the process of regaining was seen by him as a means of catering for his expanding family should be linked to Scott Waugh’s remark that Edward III’s marriage policy ‘united the royal family with noble families wielding power in the sensitive regions of Ireland and the marches of Wales and Scotland.’⁵⁴ If it is true that the 1360s in England was a decade of ‘suspended animation, almost of a political vacuum’, it was in part because Edward III’s attentions were focused elsewhere in the British Isles at the time.⁵⁵ In 1363 he reached an agreement with David II which would have meant that he, or one of his sons, would succeed to the Scottish throne should David die without an heir, only for the plan to be rejected by the Scottish parliament in March 1364.⁵⁶ In Ireland the arrival in 1361 of the king’s second surviving son, Lionel of Antwerp, heir through his marriage to the earldom of Ulster, saw the beginning of a period of massive investment of English resources in Ireland which lasted for the rest of the reign and beyond.⁵⁷ Lordship in the British Isles in the middle decades of the fourteenth century was sufﬁciently ﬂexible to withstand both famine and plague, but was most robust in those areas such as central and northern Ireland, the Anglo-Scottish border, the Highlands and Isles, and the Welsh March, where, for military and economic reasons, exploitation of land was less important than lordship over men and relative judicial independence.⁵⁸ It was a situation in which Laoighseach Ó Mordha could become a prince, and that undoubtedly signalled an ebbing of the tide of English power. The tradition of obedience to royal lordship in both England and Scotland, however, was strong, and while regional autonomy became more pronounced in the middle of the fourteenth century, few parts of the British Isles operated completely or for long beyond the range of royal control or interference. No longer could this royal lordship be channelled through noble entrepreneurs and peasant colonizers, but Edward III had other means of making his presence felt. By linking the fortunes of his immediate family to the preservation and extension of English dominance within the British Isles, he helped to ensure that England was ready when the tide turned again. ⁵⁴ Ormrod, ‘England: Edward II and Edward III’, 279; Waugh, England in the Reign of Edward III, 124. ⁵⁵ G. L. Harriss, Shaping the Nation: England 1360–1461 (Oxford, 2005), 437. ⁵⁶ Penman, David II, chs. 7–9; M. Penman, ‘Parliament Lost—Parliament Regained? The Three Estates in the Reign of David II, 1329–1371’, in K. M. Brown and R. J. Tanner (eds.), Parliament and Politics in Scotland, 1235–1560 (Edinburgh, 2004), 74–101, esp. 95–7. ⁵⁷ P. Connolly, ‘The Financing of English Expeditions to Ireland, 1361–1376’, in Lydon (ed.), England and Ireland, 104–21; P. Dryburgh and B. Smith (eds.), Handbook and Select Calendar of Sources for Medieval Ireland in the National Archives of the United Kingdom (Dublin, 2005), 300–28; R. Frame, Colonial Ireland, 1169–1369 (Dublin, 1981), 129–31; A. Cosgrove, Late Medieval Ireland, 1370–1541 (Dublin, 1981), 1–28. I am grateful to Dr Steve Boardman for helpful observations on the links between the Scottish and Irish situations in the early 1360s. ⁵⁸ R. Britnell, Britain and Ireland, 1050–1530: Economy and Society (Oxford, 2004), 491–506. ‘The Irish heartlands, rather than the colonial settlements, now formed the cores from which lordship expanded’: Frame, ‘Two Kings in Leinster’, 173.

12 The Charterhouse of Cadzand and the Serendipities of Empire D. A. L. Morgan

On the dorse of the Chancery patent roll of the twenty-ﬁrst year of Edward III as king of England, and his eighth as king of France, is entered the record in French of three interlinked transactions.¹ They occurred at the mid-point of the gathering before Calais of the largest concentration of Plantagenet military power in the course of the Hundred Years War. The ﬁrst, and longest, of the three entries, dated 28 February 1347, recites the indenture of agreement for Walter Chiriton and Gilbert Wendlingburgh to lend the king yet another 40,000 marks: the inexorable ground-bass accompaniment to the policy of empire through the ages.² The third, and shortest, gives a summary statement of the king’s promise to pay sums of 25,000 livres parisis yearly, and a further 400,000 gold écus at stipulated terms, pursuant to the contract concluded on 13 March for the marriage of the king’s eldest daughter, Isabel, to Louis of Male, count of Flanders.³ The second of the three acts, also issued in the king’s presence at Berghes in west Flanders a few miles from Calais on the same day, recounts the king’s decision to found a Carthusian monastery on the island of Cadzand across In 1975–6, Rees and I planned a course for the intercollegiate University of London History degree, on ‘Society and War: France and England, 1328–1453’. Over the following 25 years, despite many changes—among them, Rees’s move to Aberystwyth, and later the demise of the intercollegiate degree—the course continued to provide (at least for its teacher) one of the few redeeming moments in the weekly routine of professional life. I am conscious of this essay’s derivation from those ideas of 1975–6. ¹ PRO, C66/223 (rotulus factus in partibus transmarinis), m. 22d. The three entries were clearly made en bloc. ² The money was borrowed at heavy interest in Flanders. Cf. E. B. Fryde, ‘The English Farmers of the Customs, 1343–51’, TRHS, 5th ser., 9 (1959), 11–12; G. L. Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance in Medieval England to 1369 (Oxford, 1975), 325–6. ³ CPR is in error in rendering the place of issue as Bruges. The original letters under the great seal are now John Rylands University Library of Manchester, Phillips Charter 23, printed in Handlist of Charters . . . of the John Rylands Library, i, ed. R. Fawtier (Manchester, 1925), 48–52. The counterpart issued by Louis of Male is PRO, E30/66/1642, printed in Foedera, iii. pt. 1, 111–12. Cf. P. Chaplais, English Medieval Diplomatic Practice, (London, 1982), i. 503–7.

The Charterhouse of Cadzand and the Serendipities of Empire

165

the estuary from Sluis at the mouth of the Zwin. His stated purpose for this was to nourish ﬁrm friendship and to remove all matters of dissension, rancour, hatred, and discord such as had arisen there between the men of Flanders and others of the king’s men from robberies and burnings.⁴ The robberies and burnings, and their attendant rancours, dated back speciﬁcally to an episode of a decade earlier, on 9 November 1337, which Henri Pirenne dubbed ‘le premier combat de la guerre de Cent Ans’.⁵ This raid on Cadzand was enacted by an expeditionary force led by Gautier de Mauny, commissioned to escort to his native Low Countries the envoys equipped with plenipotentiary powers to conclude the grand alliance on which the king proposed to base his strategy, and such of the necessary wool supplies for its implementation as he had been able to collect; a generation later the episode became in Froissart’s rendering the assertive salvo heralding the advent of the Plantagenet bid for continental empire, in the style of those whom Gautier epitomized, men who ‘s’en voloient acquitter bacelereusement . . . ensi qu’il ﬁsent’.⁶ From 1338 to 1347 the enterprise was stamped by the driving force of the king’s own presence for nearly half that time in the Low Countries, the Rhineland, and northern France, partly in the ﬁeld with his troops but also resident in Antwerp, in Ghent, in Cologne, and in other of the high places of the north-west European world—a world already familiar to him, where he had spent part of his formative years during his twelve months’ tour in 1325–6 (aged 13) to Paris, Valenciennes, and Dordrecht from which kingship and marriage rapidly resulted. Between whiles, he experienced the humiliations and (despite such euphoric moments as Halidon Hill) the longer term frustrations of the ebbing of the tide of insular empire.⁷ For this young man, eastward the course of empire took its way, to the continental milieu of his maternal kin and marriage relations where his sense of elective afﬁnity suggested he belonged. His father-in-law, Guillaume d’Avesnes, count of Hainault and Holland—‘magister militum et prefectus principum’—the arthritic aches and pains of his last years notwithstanding, offered a much-lauded model of both political accomplishment and chivalric réclame; the count’s brother, Jean lord of ⁴ The original is Lille, Archives Départementales du Nord, Trésor des Chartes Layette 132, B.1530. There is a printed version in Oeuvres de Froissart, ed. K. de Lettenhove, 18 (Brussels, 1874), 297–9. A hospital for seven ‘dames’ was also to be founded ‘elsewhere’ in Flanders. ⁵ H. Pirenne Histoire de Belgique (Brussels, 1947), ii. 105. Cf. H. S. Lucas, The Low Countries and the Hundred Years War, 1326–1347 (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1929), 240–3; J. Sumption, The Hundred Years War (London, 1990), i. 216. Both Isabel’s marriage and compensation for the Cadzand raid were negotiating issues in November 1339–January 1340, in the process from which Edward’s assumption of the French title emerged (Lucas, Low Countries, 358–65). ⁶ Jean Froissart: Chroniques, Livre I, ed. G. T. Diller (Paris, 2001), 191–7. Froissart’s account does not derive from Jean le Bel. For Mauny’s active furtherance of Froissart’s fortunes, and his role in introducing his compatriot to Queen Philippa’s service in 1362, see J. Devaux, ‘From the Court of Hainault to the Court of England: The Example of Jean Froissart’, in C. Allmand (ed.), War, Government and Power in Late Medieval France (Liverpool, 2000), 15. ⁷ Davies, Empire, ch. 7: ‘The Ebb Tide of the English Empire, 1304–1343’.

166

D. A. L. Morgan

Beaumont, and his son-in-law, Wilhelm count of Jülich, ﬁgured as early participants in Edward’s military apprenticeship; and Reinoud count of Guelders, married to Edward’s sister in 1332, further extended this dynastic network of princely promoters of the ‘great game’ of empire, to whose playing Edward’s arrival on the continental scene in the summer of 1338—complete with wife, household, and tota familia—brought a heightened élan. Alongside the ﬂuctuations of military fortune, and despite the ﬁnancial dilemmas and economic tensions which such enterprise entailed, the conjuncture left its mark in ways which testify to an enhanced awareness of cosmopolitan tastes and attitudes. Most obviously these signal to us through the expressive forms of what we recognize as ‘chivalrous’ culture.⁸ Fantasies of imperial conquest were certainly at work in this excited atmosphere, grandiloquently conjured up in that most splendiferous manuscript of the romans du boin roi Alixandre together with the early fourteenth-century Alexander ‘interpolations’ utilizing Jacques de Longuyon’s conceit of the Nine Worthies and the ‘vows of the peacock’ which were all the rage with the aristocratic reading public of the time, projecting in the genre of the ‘mirror of princes’ an image of the conqueror who displays the virtues of prouesse, largesse, and noblesse.⁹ That manuscript was written and illuminated in 1338-44 in Bruges; its commissioning has been plausibly credited to Queen Philippa and it was later transmitted to her youngest son, Thomas of Woodstock.¹⁰ From the same circles, and also dated to 1337–44, stemmed the Roman de Perceforest, which aimed to conﬂate the stories of the two great romance cycles of Alexander and Arthur into a vast summa of pagan and Christian chivalry, empire-building and Grail quest, adroitly and ingeniously linking the wider resonance of its theme to the interconnection of Hainault and England.¹¹ The interplay was not to everyone’s taste—as witness the anonymous Westminster chronicler’s fulminations against ‘the wodnes and foley of the ⁸ For the ampler treatment this theme merits see M. G. A. Vale, The Princely Court: Medieval Courts and Culture in North-west Europe, 1270–1380 (Oxford, 2001), not least 282–94: ‘A francophone culture?’ ⁹ The Romance of Alexander. A Collotype Facsimile of MS Bodley 264, ed. M. R. James (Oxford, 1933). Cf. D. Maddox and S. Sturm-Maddox (eds.), The Medieval French Alexander (Albany, NY, 2002). The implied comparison sounded echoes from the Plantagenet past—of Henry II as ‘Alexander occidentalis’, and Edward I as ‘Alexander redivivus’ (B. Smalley, English Friars and Antiquity (Oxford, 1960), 9). ¹⁰ M. A. Rowse and R. R. Rowse, ‘The Goldsmith and the Peacocks: Jean de Le Mote in the Household of Simon de Lille, 1340’, Viator, 28 (1997), 296, n. 68. For an excellent overview of Philippa’s style and taste see J. Vale in ODNB, xliv. 34–8. Cf. T. Melis, ‘An Alexander MS for a Powerful Patron’, in B. Cardon et al. (eds.), ‘Als ich can’. Liber amicorum in Memory of Maurits Smeyers (Leuven, 2002), 961–81. ¹¹ Le Roman de Perceforest, ed. J. H. M. Taylor and G. Roussineau (Geneva, 1979–). Cf. G. Roussineau, ‘Ethique chevaleresque et pouvoir royal dans le Roman de Perceforest’, in Actes du XIV e Congrès International Arthurien 1984 (Rennes, 1985), 521–35; M. Szkilnik, ‘Conquering Alexander: Perceforest and the Alexandrian tradition’, in Maddox and Sturm-Maddox (eds.), Medieval Alexander, 203–17; Devaux, ‘From the Court of Hainault’, 10.

The Charterhouse of Cadzand and the Serendipities of Empire

167

strangers’ (more speciﬁcally, the Hainaulters) in distorting England’s ‘old honeste and good usage’ in sartorial habits.¹² And as the tensions and stress of this conjuncture intensiﬁed, the tone of literary commentary soured: by the mid-1340s the savage satire of Les Voeux du héron expressed the disenchantment of those who, like Jean d’Avesnes, lord of Beaumont, moved away from their earlier commitment to ‘li cours des Englés par dela’.¹³ The triumphs of 1345–7 were won in the teeth of the collapse of the initial grand strategy of continental alliance, and if in their aftermath the prospect of imperial enhancement could still be evoked on the wider European scene by the proffer of Edward’s election as king of the Romans and the long-remembered vision of a peaceful new order of Birgitta of Vadstena,¹⁴ the upshot was more modest. The year 1347 brought the deﬁnitive humiliation of Philip of Valois and the surrender of Calais, and to that Edward’s remaining continental allies made a substantial contribution.¹⁵ But by then the agreement for Anglo-Flemish union on a dynastic basis, into which the count had been coerced by those local forces on which the Plantagenet style of French kingship depended, had been subverted. A fortnight after his oath at Berghes to marry Isabel of Woodstock, Count Louis evaded his minders, ﬂed to Lille, and promptly married instead Margaret of Brabant—hitherto scheduled for marriage to Isabel’s brother, Edward.¹⁶ In consequence, King Edward’s undertakings of 13 March, aimed at the nourishing of friendship and the removal of rancour, lapsed. Although for thirty more years alternative gambits to secure the Flemish connection (as well as tenacious hopes of securing at least part of the Avesnes inheritance in Hainault and Holland) continued to preoccupy his plans for family aggrandizement, these impulses of dynastic identity were thwarted. The Charterhouse of Cadzand is thus a non-event, one of the many evanescent, incidental might-have-beens which litter the story of power politics. (It was neither the ﬁrst nor the last of its kind: in 1326 the Treaty of Arques aimed at pacifying Flemish rebellion against Louis of Male’s father had required the ¹² BL, Cotton MS Cleopatra A.XVI, in Chronica Johannis de Reading et Anonymi Cantuariensis 1346–1367, ed. J. Tait (Manchester, 1914), 88–9 (sub anno 1344). I quote from the rendering in The Brut or the Chronicles of England, ed. F. W. D. Brie, Early English Text Society, o.s. 136 (1908), 296–7. Cf. S. M. Newton, Fashion in the Age of the Black Prince (Woodbridge, 1980), 9, for the evolution of the text. ¹³ The Vows of the Heron, ed. J. L. Grigsby and N. J. Lacy (New York, 1992). ¹⁴ H. S. Ofﬂer, ‘England and Germany at the Beginning of the Hundred Years War’, EHR, 54 (1939), 628–31; E. Colledge, ‘Epistola solitarii ad reges: Alphonse of Pecha as Organizer of Birgittine and Urbanist Propaganda’, Mediaeval Studies, 18 (1956), 31–3. ¹⁵ The vital importance in the siege of Calais of the mutually sustaining alliance between Edward and his Flemish partisans is well brought out by Sumption, Hundred Years War, 563–71, 576–9. For its later resonance in the 16th-century Welsh of Elis Gruffudd of Gronant, see T. M. Chotzen, ‘De Vlamingen voor Calais (1346–1347)’, Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire, 7 (1928), 1485–91. ¹⁶ Lucas, Low Countries, 257, 509–27, 556–78; H. Laurent, ‘Les Conventions de Saint-Quentin (juin 1347)’, Bulletin de la Commission Royale d’Histoire, 91 (1927), 89–180.

168

D. A. L. Morgan

Flemings to found a Charterhouse at Kortrijk; in 1435 the Treaty of Arras aimed at reconciling Valois France and Burgundy was to stipulate, equally fruitlessly, the founding of a Charterhouse at Montereau.) In that perspective, its fate might seem merely an appropriately negative commentary on a decade of Plantagenet policy often viewed as a ‘false start’ to the longer term saga of the Hundred Years War. But to settle for such reductionism would unduly simplify the much more interesting theme of the cross-currents of cosmopolitan attitudes and awareness and their forms of identity which the Plantagenet bid for empire stirred up. Edward III’s politique d’action may have entailed the development of a more self-conscious sense of England as a ‘national’ community, but his sense of identity suggests that the politics of continental engagement was the outcome of a different, more cosmopolitan, mentality, and one which, in some respect at least, his policy enhanced rather than diminished. The non-event of Cadzand in 1347 notwithstanding, that is a theme which the fortunes of Carthusian monasticism as they were shaped in the longer durée of the Hundred Years War may be thought to exemplify. From the late thirteenth century, with gathering momentum in the early fourteenth, many parts of Latin Christendom experienced a marked upsurge in eremitical inclinations, which gained realization in ways of life offered by a range of religious orders both new and established: Paulines in Hungary, Celestines in central Italy and France, Olivetans in Tuscany, Jeronimites a little later in Spain, and not least the Carthusians. From the initial nucleus in the western Alps (where their ‘deserts’, however difﬁcult of access, lay close to so many of the routes of transcontinental connection), the Carthusians during their ﬁrst century had established some 30 houses, widening their network gradually further aﬁeld by attracting princely patronage to include 60 houses by the end of their second century; over the same period they had fashioned themselves into an ordered regime whose initial ‘customs’ were expounded in ampliﬁed speciﬁcation in the Statuta Antiqua of 1259, and whose papally approved status was reafﬁrmed (with some increased public attention) in 1312 at the Council of Vienne. From the 1280s the Order generated a phenomenal expansion: 91 foundations in the course of its third century with a further 67 from the 1380s, bringing the total of extant houses in 1520 to 194. The most intense phase of expansion came in the second quarter of the fourteenth century, with at least one new house founded almost each year (36 from 1325 to 1349) and with the papal Curia’s active endorsement (signalled by John XXII’s two foundations). Geographically, the main scene of this activity was north-west Europe, from the Seine valley to the Rhineland; here, as elsewhere, St Louis’s founding of the Charterhouse of Vauvert adjacent to Paris in 1257 heralded an increasing trend towards centres of urban population; and the sources of patronage and endowment were the networks of princely families, urban patriciates and the aristocracies who served both and whose interchange wove this world together. In 1288 Guillaume

The Charterhouse of Cadzand and the Serendipities of Empire

169

d’Avesnes, bishop of Cambrai and brother of the count of Hainault, founded the Charterhouse of Val-Saint-Paul, from 1297 installed by the count in the outskirts of Valenciennes; in 1298 Jean de Sainte-Aldegonde, lord of Notkelmes, of a grand bourgeois dynasty in St-Omer, founded Val-Sainte-Aldegonde there. From these two houses were recruited the pioneer personnel of the further foundations which drew on the resources of such men as Renaud de Roy, trésorier général to Philip IV (who himself assumed the title of founder at Noyon), of Thierry d’Herisson the grand commis of the Countess Mahaut of Artois (joint founders of the two houses, one for nuns, at Gosnay), and not least the Dampierre counts of Flanders and their cadets who were instrumental, in association with their councillors and with wealthy clerics and townsmen, in at least ﬁve further foundations in the years 1307–29. In parallel, and from the same social milieu, under the auspices of the three archbishop-Electors the Rhenish houses at Mainz, Trier, Koblenz, and Cologne were founded in 1320–34.¹⁷ For a while, that ‘other world’ of the British Isles seemed immune to this developing trend.¹⁸ Earlier, two Carthusian houses had been founded in England thanks to Plantagenet backing, in 1178/82 at Witham in Selwood by Henry II; and in 1222/27 at Hinton, some 10 miles further north, by his bastard son, William earl of Salisbury.¹⁹ In the 1250s another house was founded in Ireland, at Kinaleghin beyond the Shannon in Connacht, on the initiative of John de Cogan, scion of a Glamorgan conquistador lineage and vassal of Richard de Burgh; but the house had failed to prosper in the stressful conditions of the early fourteenthcentury lordship of Ireland, and between 1321 and 1341 it ebbed away.²⁰ Edward I, although keen to take out an insurance policy for the success of his Scottish enterprise by activating the pious suffrages of Witham and Hinton, had turned a deaf ear to the plea of the Carthusian General Chapter that he should lend his support to a further foundation.²¹ Thus in 1325, when Isabel of France, queen of England, her son, and their entourage mingled with the Parisian beau monde on ¹⁷ P. Piétresson de Saint-Aubin, ‘Les Origines de la Chartreuse de Marly près Valenciennes’, Revue Mabillon, 25 (1935), 217–23; B. Gofﬁn, ‘Les six premières chartreuses de Belgique au xive siècle. Une manifestation de l’orientation nouvelle de la mentalité cartusienne’, AC, 51/2 (1991); G. Schlegel and J. Hogg (eds.), ‘Monasticon Cartusiense’, 2, AC, 185 (2004). ¹⁸ See now the survey of the Provincia Angliae by Joseph Gribbin in ‘Monasticon Cartusiense’, 3, AC, 185/3 (2005), 361–459. ¹⁹ H. E. J. Cowdrey, ‘The Carthusian Impact upon Angevin England’, AC, 63/1 (1990), 35–48; R. W. Dunning, ‘The West-Country Carthusians’, in C. Harper-Bill (ed.), Religious Belief and Ecclesiastical Careers in Late Medieval England (Woodbridge, 1991), 33–42. In 1363 the Valois family assumed the role of major benefactor to Henry II’s other Carthusian foundation of Le Liget in the forest of Loches (J.-P. Aniel, Les Maisons de Chartreux des origins à la Chartreuse de Pavie (Geneva, 1983), 109). ²⁰ A. Gray, ‘Kinaleghin: A Forgotten Irish Charterhouse of the Thirteenth Century’, JRSAI, 89 (1959), 35–58. Cf. Davies, Domination, 33–4. ²¹ Foedera, i. pt. 2, 958: his letter from Perth of 10 July 1303 required them to certify the number of masses and prayers they proposed to offer, so that we, the queen, our children, and our realm ‘sua pietate ab omnibus adversitatibus tueatur’. The Carthusians’ letter soliciting his support for their hopes ‘domos in regno vestro multiplicare’ is PRO, SC1/15/197 (undated); E. M. Thompson,

170

D. A. L. Morgan

such occasions as the dedication of the new, enlarged church of the Charterhouse of Vauvert and a few weeks later the funeral ceremony of her uncle Charles prior to his burial in the Charterhouse of Bourgfontaine which he had endowed and built in his apanage of Valois,²² the pronounced Carthusian vogue is likely to have struck them as a fashionable novelty, which so far had not impinged on the English scene—though those involved in cross-Channel diplomacy may have registered it somewhat earlier. One of those diplomats was Walter Stapeldon, bishop of Exeter, whose frequent continental missions stretched back to 1306, and included a 1318 visit to Hainault to explore the possibility of Edward’s marriage to Philippa; they came to an undigniﬁed end in September 1325, when he had to ﬂee the French court in disguise to escape his enemies—the prelude to his violent death at the hands of the London mob a year later. Yet, inauspicious harbinger though he may be, Walter Stapeldon would seem the ﬁrst of the nouvelle vague of would-be English patrons of the Carthusians, their interest stimulated by continental contacts, for in 1331 his brother and executor, Sir Richard, sued out a licence in mortmain for the endowment of a Carthusian house in the diocese of Exeter to further the well-being of the souls of Walter and all his benefactors.²³ Sir Richard’s death a few months later stopped that project from going further. Also unrealized was a projected foundation by the king’s cousin Marie de Châtillon-St-Pol, dowager countess of Pembroke—a perfect weather-vane of aristocratic taste in matters of religious benefaction, and, thanks to her long-lasting membership of the club of ‘rich old ladies’, one who left an impressive record of her various enthusiasms which quite transcended political geography. Married in Paris in 1321, continually commuting thereafter between her French and English houses and estates in more than half a century of widowhood from 1324 to 1377, her major foundation was a house of Minoresses (whose ﬁrst convent at Longchamp was the work of Louis IX’s sister, Isabel, and whose three English houses boasted suitably select patronage); her determined insistence on shifting the nuns earlier established at Waterbeach onto her own land at Denny a couple of miles away preoccupied much of her efforts over the decade 1336–46, but by 1346 she had taken up the Carthusians, receiving licence to proceed with a Charterhouse at Horne in Surrey. Clearly there were distractions: 1346-8 saw her foundation of Pembroke College, Cambridge, and in 1347 she was busily arranging the institution of The Carthusians in England (London, 1930), 156–7, mistakenly elides this with the founding of Kinaleghin. ²² Society of Antiquaries of London MS 543; The War of Saint-Sardos (1323–1325), ed. P. Chaplais, Camden Series, 87 (1954), 268 (29 June: ‘isto die fuit regina Paris’ ad fratres ordinis Cartusie ibidem’); A. Moreau-Néret, ‘Philippe VI de Valois et la Chartreuse de Bourgfontaine où son coeur fut déposé’, Mémoires de la Fédération des Sociétés d’histoire et d’archéologie de L’Aisne, 13 (1967), 149–63. ²³ CPR 1330–1334, 97. The licence was issued on 26 March 1331; Sir Richard’s will was proved on 6 April 1332. The brothers had earlier achieved the foundation of Exeter College, Oxford.

The Charterhouse of Cadzand and the Serendipities of Empire

171

a hermitage in Cripplegate (close to Pembroke Inn in London) to provide a chantry for the soul of her husband; and later on there was the plan for a college in the university of Paris. But if no Charterhouse materialized in Surrey (or in Hertfordshire, where in 1369 she again thought of endowing Carthusians), she lived long enough to join forces in projects which were carried through, building a cell at the London Charterhouse and leaving benefactions in her will to all four houses of the Order which by then existed in England.²⁴ The increase was due to the countess’s contemporaries among the soldierdiplomats prominent in the king’s continental enterprise.²⁵ Quickest off the mark, and ﬁrst to complete the course, was Nicholas Cantilupe, who from the 1320s headed the cadet line of a family which in the thirteenth century, after at least three successive generations of service in the king’s household, had achieved two bishoprics and the lordship of Abergavenny; Nicholas’s father and uncle also ﬁgured among the household bannerets and knights. Inheriting baronial rank, he fought from 1319 in Scottish campaigns; knighted in 1326, he served as keeper of Berwick in 1335. By then he had already journeyed overseas on pilgrimages (in 1329 he thought ﬁt to arrange for an absence of up to three years): tantalizingly, where he went is not known.²⁶ But from 1338 his itinerary is clear: he moved in the king’s company through those territories in which the Carthusian presence was so noticeably increasing, serving as a soldier ﬁrst in the Low Countries in the retinue of Henry of Grosmont (later in Brittany), and also on diplomatic missions.²⁷ There, his associates included Reinoud of Guelders, the king’s brother-in-law, whose 1342–3 foundation of the Charterhouse of Monnikhuizen bij Arnhem was envisaged from 1335,²⁸ and Willem van Duvenvoorde, lord of Oosterhout and Bautersem, chamberlain of the Count of Hainault and (as a man of powerful weight in both Holland and Brabant) retained by Edward in 1337 with an annual ﬁef rente of £500, ²⁴ H. Jenkinson, ‘Mary de Sancto Paulo, Foundress of Pembroke College, Cambridge’, Archaeologia, 66 (1915), 401–46; J. C. Ward, English Noblewomen in the Later Middle Ages (London, 1992), 154–6; Corporation of London Records Ofﬁce, Letter-Book F, f. 152 v . The licence for a Carthusian foundation at Horne was issued on 28 June 1346, as the king prepared to sail for France (CPR 1345–1348, 141). ²⁵ What follows may be read as a descant on the theme of Jeremy Catto’s perceptive essay ‘Religion and the English Nobility in the Later Fourteenth Century’, in H. Lloyd-Jones, V. Pearl, and B. Worden (eds.), History and Imagination: Essays in Honour of H. R. Trevor-Roper (London, 1981), 43–55, in particular his conclusion ‘that the pace was set by the careerist soldiers’, 52. ²⁶ CPR 1327–1330, 417; CPR 1330–1334, 473. Pilgrimage to Jerusalem is a recurrent feature with Carthusian founders: e.g., Freiburg, Tournai, and in England William lord Zouche founder of Coventry (Nicholas Cantilupe’s distant cousin, associate in the Low Countries, and ultimate heir). ²⁷ e.g., The Wardrobe Book of William de Norwell, ed. M. Lyon, B. Lyon, and H.S. Lucas (Brussels, 1983), 18, 223, 279; CPR 1338–1340, 193; E. Déprez, Les Préliminaires de la guerre de Cent Ans (Paris, 1902), 242, 267, 357; Treaty Rolls, II, 1337–1339, ed. J. Ferguson (London, 1972), no. 346; Foedera, ii. pt. 2, 1195. ²⁸ J. I. Pontanus, Historiae Gelricae Libri XIV (Harderwyck, 1639), 208, 211. The house was founded in expiation for the slaughter wreaked at the battle of Hasselt in 1328.

172

D. A. L. Morgan

who founded the Charterhouse of Geertruidenberg in 1336–7.²⁹ It may be that Nicholas, great-nephew of Thomas Cantilupe, bishop of Hereford, canonized in 1320, cultivated a specially strong taste for saintly bishops³⁰ which predisposed him towards the Carthusians. But his choice of burial place in the Angel Choir of Lincoln cathedral near the shrine of Hugh of Avalon may have been made somewhat later, after his second marriage, to a Lincolnshire heiress, and his interest in St Hugh instead stimulated abroad, for it was in 1333–9 that Hugh’s cult was upgraded by the General Chapter ﬁrst to the penultimate, then to the highest, of the four categories of celebratory feasts within the Carthusian Order.³¹ It was, at all events, immediately after his return from Flanders to England with the king in February 1340 that Nicholas received licence for the founding of a Carthusian house at Beauvale in his park of Greasley near Nottingham; the foundation charter was issued in 1343, with consequential acts of endowment and grants of liberties and privileges from king and pope in the years up to Nicholas’s death in 1355 and beyond.³² Although the next English foundation was not put in place until the last decade of Edward III’s reign, it, too, was due to the men prominent in the ﬁrst years of overseas enterprise—in particular to the protagonist of Cadzand, Gautier de Mauny alias Watelet de Hainaut, nurtured by the house of Avesnes, page to Queen Philippa, Chamber valettus and household banneret before marriage to the king’s cousin Margaret of Brotherton and election to the Garter; and to Michael Northburgh, the king’s secretary. In his will of 1371 Gautier made clear where he saw himself in this respect, in the present and the future: ‘. . . ceo est ma volunte si plest a dieu destre enterre a la maisone de Charthous qest apelle la maison de la miere dieu hors de Loundres pres West Smethefeld del ordre de Charthous qest de ma fundacion. Item ie devise qe mon corps en lonor de dieu soit couenablement enterre come afﬁert a mon estat sanz bobance mondiau et sanz trops despenses mais resonablement selonc le secle qore court. Et qe ceo soit en my lieu le quer de lesglise come chef foundour.’³³ His claim as ‘chief founder’ is borne out by the narrative in the house’s Register, which none the less is at pains to stress the role of ‘suus proximus socius’, Michael Northburgh, in conceiving and activating the project in the years after his elevation to the see ²⁹ J. G. M. Sanders, Waterland als woestijn. Geschiedenis van het kartuizerklooster ‘Het Hollandse Huis’ bij Geertruidenberg 1336–1595 (Hilversum, 1990), 18–27; B. D. Lyon, From Fief to Indenture (Cambridge, Mass., 1957), 59. ³⁰ On 25 October 1349 the king was present at the translation of the relics of St Thomas Cantilupe into their new shrine at Hereford, ‘ad largiﬂuas expensas Nicholai de Cantilupo baronis, cognati ipsius sancti’ (Chronicon Galfridi le Baker de Swynebroke, ed. E. Maunde Thompson (Oxford, 1889), 102). ³¹ C. Le Couteulx, Annales Ordinis Cartusiensis (Montreuil-sur-Mer, 1887–91), iii. 452–3; D. H. Farmer, ‘The Cult and Canonization of St Hugh’, in H. Mayr-Harting (ed.), St Hugh of Lincoln (Oxford, 1987), 75–87. ³² CPR 1338–1340, 240–1; BL, Add. MS 6060, ff. 10–17—the well-ordered cartulary of the house. ³³ Lambeth Palace Library, Register Whittlesey, ff. 120v –121v .

The Charterhouse of Cadzand and the Serendipities of Empire

173

of London in 1354.³⁴ The association of the two men, however, was of longer standing, formed in the years after 1345 when they campaigned together overseas, Michael as the king’s envoy to the Curia, as the king’s councillor and secretary, and from 1350 to 1354 as keeper of the privy seal, going abroad every year and in 1346 sending back eye-witness reports in French from the king’s chevauchée which show ‘a keen eye for strategy and a ready appreciation of the art and practice of war’³⁵—a style in keeping with this ‘valens clericus’ who in his will bequeathed to his nephew, a canon of Chichester (matter-of-factly listed between law books, bed hangings and nappery, clerical vestments, a missal, and a Bible) ‘unam integram armaturam’.³⁶ The London Charterhouse Register records the way in which his travels prompted his subsequent efforts as benefactor: ‘ . . . on a certain occasion, when crossing over from the Roman Court, he came through France to Paris and was there making some little stay, visited for the sake of devotion on various occasions a house of the Carthusian Order near the same city . . . He began to be very sad, because there was no house of that Order near the city of London . . . ’. Having agreed a modus operandi with Gautier, he appealed for the co-operation of the priors of the older established English houses, urging them to acknowledge that elsewhere ‘in other kingdoms, many houses have been built beside great cities and towns, as we have seen near Paris, Avignon, Bruges, St Omer, within the city of Cologne and in many other places’. In the Register’s account, the subsequent story is focused on John Luscote, prior of Hinton, picking up the baton after the bishop’s death in 1361 and sustaining Gautier’s commitment until in 1370 the General Chapter (which the previous year had instructed him to scuttle Marie de St Pol’s unconvincing plans for a Hertfordshire house, on the politely disingenuous ground that the Order was not presently minded to undertake new foundations) designated him as rector for the London enterprise.³⁷ True as far as it goes, a few strangely imaginative circumstantial touches aside, we may reasonably suppose the Register’s story (composed c.1500) is less than the whole truth. The process of Carthusian foundation was always a complex, and usually a protracted, interweaving of varied impulses and interests both lay and clerical—of the Order as a constituted body, the crown, the individual benefactors, and go-betweens both Carthusian and other; and although in the ³⁴ The Register is PRO, Land Revenue Miscellaneous Books, 2/61, and its account of the foundation is printed and translated with other documentation in W. H. St John Hope, The History of the London Charterhouse (London, 1925), 28–36, 6–15, from which I quote. Cf. D. Knowles and W. F. Grimes, Charterhouse: The Medieval Foundation in the Light of Recent Discoveries (London, 1954). ³⁵ J. R. L. Highﬁeld, ‘The English Hierarchy in the Reign of Edward III’, TRHS, 5th ser., 6 (1956), 136. His 1346 campaign report is contained in Chronicon Adae Murimuth et Roberti de Avesbury, ed. E. Maunde Thompson (RS, London, 1889), 358–60. ³⁶ London Guildhall Library MS 25271/47. In December 1350 he had not yet taken priest’s orders. ³⁷ Le Couteulx, Annales, vi. 90–1, 99–104.

174

D. A. L. Morgan

case of the London house we have somewhat more evidence than usual, it amounts at best to a few partial glimpses.³⁸ These do suggest, however, a widening susceptibility in England to the Carthusian ethos during the third-quarter of the fourteenth century, the generation which saw the Plantagenet polity raise its dynastic and imperial sights still higher. In 1349 (the year Gautier de Mauny acquired the site in West Smithﬁeld) the Carthusian General Chapter added King Edward to those for whom prayers were to be offered in all houses of the Order.³⁹ Perhaps they were encouraged to do so by reports of the ﬂeeting prospect of the Cadzand foundation, as well as by the achievement of Beauvale, when the king was probably known to be contemplating serious religious benefaction,⁴⁰ though in the event Edward’s own susceptibility to the Order proved less than that of others. To the Marian focus of Carthusian devotion he was indeed attuned, but in 1350 his choice of monastic Order for his house of St Mary Graces in East Smithﬁeld beside the Tower of London conformed to dynastic tradition and went to the Cistercians. A few years later he reciprocated the Carthusians’ investment in his spiritual well-being by instituting one of the two longest-lasting forms of royal benefaction to them, and by reactivating the other. In 1340 he had conﬁrmed the ‘ancient appointed alms’ granted by Henry II of 50 marks a year to the Grande Chartreuse, brushing aside a misconceived move to subsume the Savoyard house into the category of ‘alien priories’; although seemingly delayed until 1361–2—whether by bureaucratic recalcitrance or inadvertent doziness—payment was then resumed and (apart from a hiatus during the years of Schism, when the Grande Chartreuse was among those houses of the Order within the Avignonese obedience) continued for a further generation from Henry IV’s conﬁrmation of 1412 until in ³⁸ The evidence for the foundations of the English houses of the Order does not lend itself easily to an exploration of these converging impulses such as M. de Waha, ‘Aux origines de la Chartreuse de Scheut: pèlerinage ‘‘populaire’’ et monastère ‘‘patricien’’’, Annales de la Société Royale d’archéologie de Bruxelles, 55 (1978), 3–26. But the fragmentary annals of the Coventry house (Monasticon, vi. 16) are an incitement to further consideration of the tangled indications for the 1370s and 1380s. ³⁹ AC, 100/21 (1992), 36: ‘pro Rege Angliae et domina Regina et eorum liberis ac pacis bonoque statu patriae suae dicatur una missa de Spiritu Sancto cum oratione de Beata Maria’. With slight variations, the surviving records of the General Chapter show that the formula was reiterated over the following thirty years (AC, 100/29 (1998), 161–213). In 1348 the priors of Currière and Geerardsbergen had ‘visited’ England (CPR 1348–1350, 191). ⁴⁰ In the charter of 20 March 1345, granting Beauvale the same liberties as Witham and Hinton, the king declared himself moved ‘ob affectionem specialem quam ad dictum ordinem qui in fervore devocionis et religionis sinceritate inter ceteras religiones ﬂorere dinoscituri optinemur’ (BL, Add. MS 6060, f. 11). When it came, in 1346, his ﬁrst move towards benefaction was in favour of the house of Dominican nuns at Dartford, for which French recruits were imported in 1356. Cf. W. M. Ormrod, ‘The Personal Religion of Edward III’, Speculum, 64 (1989), 873. In his later years, subvention of a plethora of hermits became frequent: e.g., 13s. 4d . for each of 9 recluses towards Christmas 1365, and the same for each of 3 hermits and 8 anchorites ‘infra civitatem London’ et suburbis eiusdem reclusis’ towards Christmas 1371 (PRO, E403/425, m. 19; E403/444, m. 17).

The Charterhouse of Cadzand and the Serendipities of Empire

175

1444–5 the Grande Chartreuse arranged a transfer of the grant to Hinton Charterhouse.⁴¹ The reactivation of that benefaction in 1361–2 coincided with further signs of attention to the Carthusians. In 1358 an ad hoc payment of 40 marks of the king’s alms, and a grant of a tun of wine yearly during the king’s life, were made to Hinton; the latter was modiﬁed in 1363 into a grant in mortmain, and the same was accorded, also in 1362, to Witham and Beauvale; in due course, in 1377 before Edward’s death the new London house was added (and the ﬁve subsequent English Charterhouses similarly) to what thereafter remained the only such comprehensive royal benefaction to all the English houses of a monastic Order.⁴² The year 1363 also brought a grant to Beauvale by Isabel, the king’s daughter, of an annual pension of 100 shillings for her life in return for remembrance in the house’s prayers.⁴³ It seems likely that these signs of quickening interest relate to the gathering momentum of the project for the London house, signalled by the 1361 agreement between Gautier de Mauny and Michael Northburgh, and fostered by both Prior Luscote (busily shuttling between attendance at the General Chapter in Savoy and his duties as ‘visitor’ of the new English province of the Order set up in 1368⁴⁴ ) and such royal servants as Simon Langham, successively abbot, bishop, and archbishop, the king’s treasurer, and chancellor in these years of royal generosity, whose Carthusian interest led him after his translation to the Curia as cardinal in 1368 to lavish sufﬁcient funds on the Charterhouse of Bonpas in Provence to gain recognition as its ‘second founder’.⁴⁵ The funeral of Gautier de Mauny in January 1372 was celebrated at his chosen place of burial, in the chapel at the centre of the building site of the new London Charterhouse. It was attended by King Edward and by everyone who was anyone.⁴⁶ Such attention was reinforced by news of the devastating ﬁre at the Grande Chartreuse in the summer of 1371, and the Order’s dispatch of fund-raisers throughout Latin Christendom to seek remedial help: as well ⁴¹ Such is the story which the records of Chancery and Exchequer tell; they show that Dom Le Couteulx (Annales, vi. 425–9) was unduly sceptical that royal promises and formal conﬁrmations continued to produce palpable results: an inventory of payments, usually made in twice-yearly instalments of 25 marks, recorded on the Liberate and Issue rolls and the Warrants for Issue would be tediously lengthy. For the episodes mentioned above see CPR 1338–1340, 358, 377, 453; CPR 1408–1413, 392; CPR 1441–1446, 327, 397. ⁴² Occasonal grants of wine, sometimes speciﬁed as intended for the celebration of the Eucharist, were made (to the Carthusians among others) from the 12th century onwards. Under Edward III such alms were ﬁrst directed to selected Cistercian houses from 1345; from then until 1377 the recipients listed in the ‘elemosina’ sections of the surviving king’s household accounts were usually about a dozen, and remained at that level thereafter with a few ﬂuctuations both of regularity of provision and of royal preference as to recipients—except for the comprehensive allocation to the Carthusians. The marginal notes entered on PRO, E101/397/5, f. 78, signal the 1363 institutionalization of this benefaction. ⁴³ BL, Add. MS 6060, f. 77. ⁴⁴ Le Couteulx, Annales, vi. 76; CPR 1367–1370, 130. ⁴⁵ M. Dubois, ‘La Chartreuse de Notre Dame de Bonpas’, Revue Mabillon, 20 (1930), 125–6. ⁴⁶ Froissart: Chroniques, Livre I: Le MS d’Amiens, IV, ed. G. T. Diller (Geneva, 1993), 162.

176

D. A. L. Morgan

as the king, those contributing no doubt included the Prince of Wales and the earl of Arundel (both commemorated on their deaths as members of the confraternity of the Grande Chartreuse)⁴⁷ and Roger lord Beauchamp, the archetypal Edwardian household factotum, soldier, and incessant diplomat, who, in 1379, left bequests of 40 shillings ‘a chescun couent des quatre mesons del Charteheuse en Engleterre, et a loer chef meson en Savoye lxs. estre’.⁴⁸ It is to these high-ranking men of government and affairs that the Carthusian impulse of the time owed its greatest material debt. The clerics among the benefactors conform to this type: beside Northburgh and Langham stand such key administrators as Bishops Edington⁴⁹ and Buckingham (founder of cells at London and Coventry) and that embodiment of the church militant, Thomas Hatﬁeld (founder of two cells at London). The process of Carthusian endowment, which facilitated—and usually necessitated—the recruitment of multiple ‘patrons’ subscribing ‘shares’ in individual cells, widened the network of investors, notably so with the 24-cell London house but also with the standard 13-cell foundations. These patrons included such men of affairs as the merchantﬁnanciers Adam Fraunceys and William Walworth (each of whom endowed ﬁve of the London cells), as well as such citizenry as the Botoners at Coventry and commercially involved gentry like the Tilneys of Boston at both Coventry and London, along with men of higher rank such as the group of Michael de la Pole’s associates who, by 1377, had begun the foundation of the Charterhouse of Hull.⁵⁰ The same social milieux were implicated in the foundations of the following decades, at Coventry, Axholme, and Mount Grace, and the might-have-been house at Totnes.⁵¹ Here again, and despite Richard II’s characteristically selfpromoting magniloquence in declaring himself founder of the Coventry house, initiative stemmed not so much from the king himself as from wider courtly and cosmopolitan networks, with Queen Anne to the fore, as beﬁtted a member of the Luxemburg dynasty which over three generations from 1331 to 1389 founded the ﬁve Carthusian houses of Trier, Koblenz, Prague, Brno, and ⁴⁷ Le Couteulx, Annales, vi. 120–2, 210–11; La Grande Chartreuse, par un Chartreux, 16th edn. ( [Correrie de la Grande Chartreuse], 1991), 124–5. ⁴⁸ Lambeth Palace Library, Register Sudbury, f. 103. ⁴⁹ Registrum Simonis Langham, ed. A. C. Wood, Canterbury and York Society, 53 (1956), 320–1, for Edington’s bequests to Witham and Hinton—further endowed 1361–77 by William Canynges of Bristol and others. ⁵⁰ CPR 1374–1377, 434—licence of 20 May 1377; CPR 1377–1381, 228–9—foundation charter of 18 February 1379. Of this group, John lord Neville was a benefactor of both Hull and Coventry (PRO, E327/774—his will of 3l August 1386). ⁵¹ The abortive Totnes project, perhaps conceived by William lord Zouche in the wake of the king’s takeover bid for his father’s Coventry project, is evidenced in the papal petition and resulting Episcopal enquiry of 1387: PRO, E326/8661 (a reference I owe to Nigel Saul). The wider context of these foundations is discussed in J. A. Tuck, ‘Carthusian Monks and Lollard Knights: Religious Attitude at the Court of Richard II’, Proceedings of the New Chaucer Society, 1 (1986), 149–61.

The Charterhouse of Cadzand and the Serendipities of Empire

177

Olomouc.⁵² And thereafter, while Henry V’s foundation of Sheen—the largest and grandest of the English houses—belatedly reasserted royal pre-eminence,⁵³ the pattern persisted. That offshoot (on both sides) of the Hainault connection, the Beaufort clan, ﬁgured largely: Thomas, duke of Exeter (exemplar of chivalric noblesse), as second founder of Mount Grace,⁵⁴ and Henry, cardinal of England (protagonist of both Hussite crusade and Lancastrian ascendancy) as major donor to yet another rebuilding of the Grande Chartreuse;⁵⁵ their niece Joan’s marriage to King James I probably furthered the founding of the solitary Scottish Charterhouse at Perth in 1426–9, initially promoted from Mount Grace.⁵⁶ It was therefore with an apposite sense of an ending that 1453 saw the consecration of the chapel of St Michael which Sir John Popham had added to the London Charterhouse, where earlier Sir Robert Knolles (by 1407, when he died, himself a venerable monument to the early days of the French enterprise) had founded a cell; Popham’s burial there in 1463—after a strenuous lifetime marked, from his knighting on the ﬁeld of Agincourt, by his ‘readiness to serve the king either in war or on embassy’—brought Gautier de Mauny’s foundation to a ﬁtting conclusion, reaching back from the last generation of the Hundred Years War to the ﬁrst.⁵⁷ Fittingly, too, the king whose cause Beauforts and Popham sought to uphold, often considered a Carthusian monk manqué, but so destitute of that commitment to the ‘great game’ of chivalry and empire whose enactors so interestingly often promoted Carthusian foundations, made no move to join the ranks of those commemorated as the Order’s benefactors.⁵⁸ Any attempt to grasp the impulses which led these men of worldly enterprise to foster communities vowed to the rigours and abnegations of eremitical life ⁵² Monasticon, vi. 16, for her instrumental role at Coventry, ‘the house of St Anne’; R. W. Pfaff, New Liturgical Feasts in Later Medieval England (Oxford, 1970), 43, with reference to the dedication of Axholme as ‘the house of the Visitation’; Monasticon, vi. 23, for her inclusion among those to be commemorated at Mount Grace. ⁵³ N. Beckett, ‘Henry V and Sheen Charterhouse: The Expansion of Royal and Carthusian Ideals’, AC, 63/1 (1990), 49–71. ⁵⁴ Thomas is likely to have been responsible for the 1412 resumption of the link with the Grande Chartreuse, for which he and his royal half-brother and nephew were accorded a ‘tricenarium de Spiritu Sancto’ throughout the reunited Order (AC, 100/2l (1992), 37). His role in promoting the Carthusians complements that of the king’s Chamberlain, Lord Fitzhugh, towards that other international Order taken up by Henry V, the Brigittines (cf. N. Beckett, ‘St Bridget, Henry V and Syon Abbey’, AC, 35/19 (1993), 125–50). ⁵⁵ AC, 100/11 (1991), 70. The benefaction may have been prompted by the Cardinal’s Carthusian confessor (G. L. Harriss, Cardinal Beaufort (Oxford, 1988), 377–8). ⁵⁶ N. Beckett, ‘The Perth Charterhouse before 1500’, AC, 128 (1988); J. A. Gribbin, ‘The Royal House of Stewart and the Charterhouse of Perth’, AC, 182/1 (2003), 112–15. ⁵⁷ Popham’s nomination for the Garter in 1447 was more evidently merited than his nonelection. His ancestral record, back to the days of a donzel of Henry of Grosmont, and taking in a sister of Bishop Hatﬁeld, is the story of the Hundred Years War in nuce. ⁵⁸ N. Beckett, ‘Henry VI, Sheen Charterhouse and the Authorities at the Grande Chartreuse’, AC, 125/1 (1991), 220–41.

178

D. A. L. Morgan

may well induce the historian to concur with Robert Browning’s postulate of the need for the concept of heaven—otherwise, one’s grasp will for ever fall short of one’s reach. Questions arise and should be asked, even if this essay has no answer to them. Were these impulses grounded in feelings of revulsion and remorse, or rather in some scheme of values less remote from the ethos of an acceptance world (‘ . . . selonc le secle quore court’, in Gautier de Mauny’s happy phrase)? The mentality of the late medieval aristocracy can readily be made to seem, if not schizophrenic, at least paradoxically self-contradictory; but would it here be more apposite to ponder the reﬂection of a historian whose juxtapositions of that world’s incongruities gave his vivisection of it much of its cutting edge? Johan Huizinga’s analysis of ‘the forms of life, thought and art’ of this society brought him to contemplate ‘the primitive and spontaneous asceticism, which is at the bottom of the chivalrous ideal’.⁵⁹ For the founders of Charterhouses, as distinct from the monks they endowed, the asceticism was vicarious; but in choosing to spend their money as they did, did these founders—conditioned as they must often have been by such things as Ramon Llull’s Libre del ordre de cavayleria, whose doctrine is imparted by the knight-turned-hermit—see themselves as reaching for an enactment of ‘the heroic dream’ in its most starkly disciplined form?⁶⁰ If so, in England they did not venture quite so far towards a unitary vision as Amadeus VI of Savoy, who, in 1383, founded the Charterhouse of PierreChâtel as the cult-centre of his chivalric Order of the Collar (and whose ducal grandson in 1434 retired to Ripaille as head of the Order of the knightshermit of St Maurice, prior to his reincarnation as Pope Felix V).⁶¹ But they were at least, as men pre-eminent in the purposeful conduct of the affairs of church and state, likely to be impressed by an Order whose sophisticated and efﬁcient system of consensual centralized authority had no rival in medieval Europe as a constitutional mechanism save perhaps the Venetian Serenissima.⁶² Free as an exempt Order from hierarchical constraints, the annual General ⁵⁹ J. Huizinga, The Waning of the Middle Ages (London, 1955), 74—in the 1924 Hopman translation approved by Huizinga. The passage is reworded in the Payton and Mammitzch version of the longer original text thus: ‘This primitive ascetic excitement is the basis on which the ideal of knighthood was built into a noble fantasy of male perfection, a close kin of the Greek kalokagathia, a purposeful striving for the beautiful life that energetically inspired a number of centuries—but also a mask behind which a world of greed and violence could hide’ (J. Huizinga, The Autumn of the Middle Ages (Chicago, 1996), 82). ⁶⁰ The disciplined rigour of their way of life was the quality singled out (in militaristic language) by John XXII in his foundation bull of 1320 for Bonpas: . . . ‘desiderii passiones per observantiam districtionis arte repremitis, quod victoriose de seculi fatigationibus triumphatis . . . ’ (Dubois, ‘La Chartreuse’, 242). ⁶¹ D’A. J. D. Boulton, The Knights of the Crown: The Monarchical Orders of Knighthood in Later Medieval Europe, 1325–1520 (Woodbridge, 1987), 254; M. Bruchet, Le Château de Ripaille (Paris, 1907), 81–108. ⁶² L. Moulin, ‘Les Eglises comme institutions politiques. L’Assemblée, autorité souveraine dans L’Ordre des Chartreux’, Res Publica: Revue de L’Institut Belge de Science Politique, 12/1 (1970), 5–75.

The Charterhouse of Cadzand and the Serendipities of Empire

179

Chapter in which the constituent houses themselves exercised legislative and regulatory power through carefully constructed electoral delegation, informed and implemented by the detailed oversight of provincial visitation, enabled the Carthusians to function as a unitary international structure—in 1410 demonstrating to the Church at large how to end the Schism, thanks to its own ﬁrm-minded resort to reintegrative self-help. Within their rigorously demarcated and sharply maintained ‘limits’, the members of this ‘modernus ordo heremitarum’ lived the vita contemplativa. Their accomplishments have impressed both their contemporaries and later commentators on late medieval religious life, not least their success as facilitators of a cosmopolitan ambience receptive to new currents of religious experience. To one commentator, ‘Tout le movement de la devotio moderna se tient en pensée à la porte du chapitre de la Chartreuse’.⁶³ How far the English Carthusians participated in this wider movement of ideas has been variously assessed, and the assessment clearly involves their characterization as part of a ‘tightly-knit spiritual aristocracy’⁶⁴—âmes d’élite, in David Knowles’s phrase—whether of national or international identity. Some have suggested that the English Charterhouses in the ﬁfteenth century showed symptoms of a somewhat provincial outlook:⁶⁵ though personal interchange with houses elsewhere continued (particularly with the Low Countries Charterhouses of the province of ‘Picardia remotioris’, whose priors on occasion served as ‘visitors’ in England, and from which the initial personnel of Sheen was recruited), the General Chapter found cause recurrently to restrain urges towards liturgical localism, which in 1441 went so far as a petition to Pope Eugenius IV on behalf of ‘the priors and brethren of the realm of England of the Carthusian Order’, that they be allowed to conform to the practice of other religions of the realm in the celebration of feasts of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin, of St George, and of certain kingly and other natives of the realm, martyrs, and confessors.⁶⁶ National and international identities, we must hope, are not mutually exclusive, and to presume to ﬁnd more signiﬁcance in the spate of new foundations during the Hundred Years War than in its cessation in the war’s aftermath might inveigle us into the dubious exercise of seeking to prove a negative. Perhaps both phenomena are symptoms of wider shifts of outlook, reﬂecting the ebbs and ﬂows of insularity and continental engagement. But in so far as the stance of the English Carthusians in the 1530s suggests their continued ⁶³ J. Toussaert, Le Sentiment religieux en Flandre à la ﬁn du Moyen Age (Paris, 1963), 461–2. ⁶⁴ R. W. Lovatt, ‘The Imitation of Christ in Late Medieval England’, TRHS, 5th ser., 18 (1968), 115. ⁶⁵ J. Hogg, ‘The English Charterhouses and the Devotio Moderna’, in J. de Grauwe (ed.), Historia et Spiritualis Cartusiensis (Destellenbergen, 1983), 257–68. ⁶⁶ Calendar of Papal Registers 1431–1447, 201. Cf. J. A. Gribbin, ‘Aspects of Carthusian Liturgical Practice in Late Medieval England’, AC, 99/33 (1995); J. Hogg, ‘Life in an English Charterhouse in the Fifteenth Century’, AC, 223 (2004), 35–58—a digest of the evidence of the chartae of the General Chapter.

180

D. A. L. Morgan

commitment to more than ‘national’ imperatives,⁶⁷ their sense of wider identity was rooted in those drives towards continental engagement which, along with the dissensions, rancours, hatreds, and discords, incongruously or not, had been fostered by the quarrel of France and Edward III’s bid for honour and empire.⁶⁸ ⁶⁷ D. Mathew and G. Mathew, The Reformation and the Contemplative Life: A Study of the Conﬂict between the Carthusians and the State (London, 1934): the famous story of ‘heroic constancy’ told to advantage by placing it in the wider perspective of the Order’s history. ⁶⁸ Cf. Polydore Vergil’s lament ‘that the common societie of mankind was broken’ by the quarrel’s intensiﬁcation of national identities and the consequential ‘hatred that hath spronge of contention for honor and empire’: Three Books of Polydore Vergil’s English History, ed. H. Ellis, Camden Society old ser., 29 (London, 1844), 82.

13 On the Hospitality of the Welsh: A Comparative View Llinos Beverley Smith

In their search for the deﬁning characteristics of Welsh medieval society, historians have confronted several powerful paradigms of social and political development. The ﬁrst is that of the so-called peripheral societies or the ‘backwaters’ of the islands of Britain and Ireland, and, more widely, the lands which lay beyond the ‘charmed circle’ of regions often granted the status of core societies in historical writing.¹ A second is that provided by the political heartlands, represented in Welsh historiography by what Rees Davies aptly described as the ‘southern constructed and southern-dominated orbit of power’ of England, whose inﬂuence on modern interpretations of Welsh social and cultural values has been profound.² Yet another model, which Welsh medieval historians have been obliged to respect, is that of the networks of interdependence, the reciprocal and dynamic connections of the ‘espaces transitoires’ which advocates of a ‘British history’ have espoused. Yet, as Davies repeatedly cautioned in his writings, the seductive construction of a holistic history of Britain should not be allowed to overwhelm a sensitive appraisal of its distinctive and separate peoples. Likewise, as he also remarked, the Anglicization of the British Isles was limited and essentially external to the cultures of non-English societies, and while in the period after 1282 large claims can legitimately be made for the ‘drawing power’ of England in Wales, there remained deep incompatibilities in the social and cultural norms of the two peoples.³ In his search for those incompatibilities, his ‘check-list of the identifying characteristics’, Davies investigated a broad constellation of features which sustained the distinctive identities of the peoples of Britain and Ireland.⁴ ¹ Davies, Empire, 89–92; C. Wickham, ‘Problems of Comparing Rural Societies in Early Medieval Western Europe’, in id., Land and Power (London, 1994), 202. ² Davies, Empire, 63. ³ R. R. Davies, ‘In Praise of British History’, in id., British Isles, 10; see also S. Duffy, ‘The British Perspective’, in S. H. Rigby (ed.), A Companion to Britain in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 2003), 165–83. ⁴ R. R. Davies, ‘The Peoples of Britain and Ireland 1100–1400, III: Laws and Customs’, TRHS, 6th ser. (1996), 1–23.

182

Llinos Beverley Smith

It is with one element of late-medieval Welsh culture, namely, the ethic of hospitality, that this study is concerned. Whatever its origins and compulsions, and the conﬂicting images which occasions of commensality might invoke, the ethic of hospitality has been common to numerous societies.⁵ Yet its attributes and the value attached to its practice have also been exceedingly varied. At one end of the spectrum societies which observed a ‘law of hospitality’, or, perhaps, more correctly, a code of hospitality, have been described, where the imperatives of protecting and providing not only for kinsmen and friends but also for strangers was widely acknowledged. Such was the case in Gaelic Ireland, a society whose law texts enunciated a clearly articulated law of hospitality, where countless observers recorded the people’s pleasure in receiving a ‘great throng of guests’, and where, as recent studies have claimed, hospitality constituted a cultural standard which underpinned their most signiﬁcant social relationships.⁶ At the other end, English society between 1400 and 1700, despite its regional particularities, has been revealed by Felicity Heal’s penetrating analysis as one where hospitality displayed the attributes of ‘recessive genes’, and had become a quality which the English ‘approved with their lips rather than practised in their lives’.⁷ Throughout the numerous studies, the rhetoric and practice of hospitality, no less than the distinctions of diet and the rituals of dining, emerge as useful markers of the character of a society. Clearly, any attempt to investigate the deﬁning cultural norms of the Welsh in the late middle ages must address, within a comparative context, the ethic of hospitality, a central feature, it will be argued, of the value-systems of the people of Wales. By the late twelfth century, the reputation of the people of Wales as courteous and conscientious hosts had been endorsed in the celebrated comments of both Gerald of Wales and Walter Map. Writing in the distinctive ethnographic tradition that had informed the observations of Helmold of Bosau and Adam of Bremen, Gerald vividly portrayed a people among whom there were no beggars, who prized generosity above all other virtues, their households perennially open to wayfarers whose feet would be washed, their senses, meanwhile, delighted by the conversation of maidens and the strains of their harps. For his part, Walter ⁵ L. Benveniste, Le Vocabulaire des institutions indo-européenes (Paris, 1969), i. 87–101; J. M. Pitt-Rivers, ‘The Law of Hospitality’, in id., The Fate of Schechem or the Politics of Sex (Cambridge, 1977), 94–112; id., ‘The Stranger, the Guest and the Hostile Host: Introduction to the Study of the Laws of Hospitality’, in J. G. Peristiany (ed.), Contributions to Mediterranean Sociology (Paris, 1968), 13–30. ⁶ K. Simms, ‘Guesting and Feasting in Gaelic Ireland’, JRSAI, 108 (1978), 67–100; C. O’Sullivan, Hospitality in Medieval Ireland 900–1500 (Dublin, 2004), 12; F. Kelly, A Guide to Early Irish Law (Dublin, 1988), 36–8, 139–40. ⁷ F. Heal, Hospitality in Early Modern England (Oxford, 1990), 400, 402; discussion, 352–403, suggesting 15th-century antecedents; C. M. Woolgar, The Great Household in Late Medieval England (New Haven and London, 1999).

On the Hospitality of the Welsh

183

Map, despite his apparent reluctance to see ‘meat and drink ﬂy’ within his own household, none the less commended the hospitality of the Welsh, who lavishly provided for guests and entertained them without question until the third day. Thirteenth-century law texts, likewise, recorded the ways in which the ‘king’s paupers’ should be maintained in his court and, moreover, suggest a widespread acknowledgement of the duties of almsgiving and hospitality within Welsh society.⁸ The practical implementation of such constructs of hospitality is not, however, easy to document in surviving thirteenth-century sources nor in those of the late middle ages. Indeed, if the signiﬁcance of hospitality is to be judged by a functional role which can be identiﬁed in household ordinances and accounts, or illustrated in contemporary books of etiquette and nurture, archival and literary genres which are notably absent in Wales, the country’s medieval experience has little to offer the practitioner of comparative study. The corpus of poetry stretching from the twelfth to the sixteenth centuries and beyond is our primary, indeed our only, substantial entry into the practice of hospitality. But if, in one sense, the literary materials might be dismissed as the formulaic exaggerations of those who guarded the traditional moral order in Wales, it is also the case that, besides the many practical details the poets convey, the norms which they uncover have an undoubted value for historical enquiry. If the Icelandic sagas have been revealed in recent historical writings as works which express the internal coherences of their societies, the same courtesies can, arguably, be extended to the strict metre poetry—the awdlau and cywyddau— of late medieval Wales.⁹ The corpus of poetry, both the mainstream eulogistic tradition and the satirical genre, is especially valuable in a number of important respects. In the ﬁrst place, the sheer number of poets, the wide geographical range of their itineraries (taith clera), their apparent presence as partakers and witnesses of the social activities in the homes of their patrons suggest the value of the poetry not only as commentary on the ideals but also on the realities of hospitality in the period. Second, whereas the mechanics of patronage and the reciprocity of patron and poet have, hitherto, been accorded the prime position in historical discussion, the poetry also reveals the supporting cast of those who participated at princely and noble feasts.¹⁰ Surviving texts, both of poetry and prose, deploy the terms esbyd, osb (L. hospes), and gwesty (guests), and sometimes convey the tensions ⁸ Gir. Camb. Op., vi. 182–4; Walter Map, De Nugis Curialium, ed. M. R. James, rev. C. N. L. Brooke and R. A. B. Mynors (Oxford, 1983), 182–4; The Latin Texts of the Welsh Laws, ed. H. D. Emanuel (Cardiff, 1967), 213, 356, 454 (references I owe to the kindness of Huw Pryce). ⁹ e.g., K. Hastrup, Culture and History in Medieval Iceland (Oxford, 1985). See also the comments of Davies, Revolt, 5–34; G. Williams, Recovery, Reorientation and Reformation: Wales c.1415–1642 (Oxford, 1987), 80. ¹⁰ Such poetry was addressed especially to secular and ecclesiastical patrons, but also to towns and regions. References in this study are to secular patrons and have been kept to a minimum. Gwaith Gruffudd Llwyd a’r Llygliwiaid Eraill, ed. R. Ifans (Aberystwyth, 2000), no. 14 (a good example of reciprocity); Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru (Cardiff, 1950–2002), s.v. (for the terms).

184

Llinos Beverley Smith

as well as the celebratory conviviality which surrounded the feast when guests had arrived. ‘The dwelling place of hospitality’ (dinas gwestiuyeint) was how the poet Cynddelw (c.1155–95) saluted Prince Owain Cyfeiliog of Powys, just as he lauded the court of Cadwallon ap Madog ab Idnerth of Maelienydd as one open to the needy, with guests present at his feasts (Agored y lys i les eilwyon—byd, Eithid y esbyd y ysborthyon).¹¹ The poetry also describes the traditional calendric celebrations which punctuated the year of elite hospitality—the feasts held at Christmastide, Easter, and Whitsun—and there are frequent allusions to the marking of rites of passage such as marriage and death, or to mabsant (patronal saint) celebrations as occasions of commensality which patrons were required to respect.¹² Equally revealing is the social context in which the poetry was composed. That of the period before the Edwardian conquest evokes the hall culture of native princes and lords, and the heroic camaraderie of the lord and his warbands. It describes the libations liberally dispensed in anticipation of battle, or in its celebration, and the material and metaphorical presence of drink.¹³ The poetry of the post-conquest period, by contrast, is primarily that of the hall-house culture of gentry and prosperous freeholders whose increased visibility in the poetic œuvre reﬂects the presence of a new class of patrons. A self-conscious delight among them in the management of the household and in the prestige of house-ownership is signalled by the word perchentyaeth (house-ownership), a term which apparently makes one of its earliest appearances in the poetry of Llywarch Bentwrch (ﬂ. 1350), and in the increasing expression of pride in house-building, in much the same way that Irish poets were also describing the residences of their patrons.¹⁴ The splendid whitewashed ashlar of the house built by Ieuan Llwyd of Is Aeron (Ceredigion) is brieﬂy described by an early fourteenth-century poet (one of the earliest allusions of its kind), while, by the ﬁfteenth century, the building of notable residences such as Cochwillan or Llwydiarth, among others, was more expansively depicted and eulogized in the cywyddau of Guto’r Glyn (ﬂ. 1435–93) and Gwilym ab Ieuan Hen (ﬂ. 1435–70).¹⁵ Within the walls of their ¹¹ Gwaith Cynddelw Brydydd Mawr, ed. N. A. Jones and A. P. Owen (Cardiff, 1991), i. no. 16, l. 59; no. 21, ll. 170–1. ¹² For Christening feasts, see Ll. B. Smith, ‘Proofs of Age in Medieval Wales’, BBCS, 38 (1991), 134–44; R. Suggett, ‘Festivals and Social Structure in Early Modern Wales’, P&P, 152 (1996), 79–112. ¹³ M. Haycock, Where Cider Ends, There Ale Begins to Reign: Drink in Medieval Welsh Poetry (Cambridge, 1999). ¹⁴ Gwaith Sefnyn, Rhisierdyn, Gruffudd Fychan ap Gruffudd ab Ednyfed a Llywarch Bentwrch, ed. N. A. Jones and E. H. Rheinallt (Aberystwyth, 1995), no. 13, ll. 23–4 and n.; cf. K. Simms, ‘Native Sources for Gaelic Settlement: The House Poems’, in P. J. Duffy, D. Edwards, and E. FitzPatrick (eds.), Gaelic Ireland: Land, Lordship and Settlement, c.1250-c.1650 (Dublin, 2001), 246–67. ¹⁵ Gwaith Llywelyn Brydydd Hoddnant, Dafydd ap Gwilym, Hillyn ac Eraill, ed. A. P. Owen (Aberystwyth, 1996), no. 6, ll. 1–4; Gwaith Guto’r Glyn, ed. I. Williams (Cardiff, 1939), no. 100, ll. i. 9–34; Gwaith Deio ab Ieuan Du a Gwilym ab Ieuan Hen, ed. A. E. Davies (Cardiff, 1992), no. 19, ll. 9–54.

On the Hospitality of the Welsh

185

dwellings the householders of Wales exercised a muniﬁcence often compared with the boundless hospitality of The Three Generous Ones of traditional lore, whose benisons had set the standard to which later generations, evidently, aspired.¹⁶ What, then, were the attributes of Welsh hospitality as deﬁned by the poets? Even a cursory reading of the poetic output of the late middle ages would reveal the prodigious, even the reckless, hospitality which Welsh hosts were said to provide. If the smell of cooking remains ‘one of the lingering souvenirs of Roman civilisation’, the aromas of roast meats and spices and the bouquets of muscats, clarets, and burgundy pervade the poetry of Wales in the late middle ages, especially that of the ﬁfteenth century.¹⁷ In contrast to the plain eating and absence of etiquette described by Gerald, poets such as Lewys Glyn Cothi (ﬂ. 1445–89) or Dafydd Nanmor (ﬂ. 1450–90) delighted in the lavish array of roast peacocks, venison, and swans, the pomegranates and oranges, the saffron, sander, and Lombardy mustard present at table; the provision of food now taking its place in addition to the dispensation of drink in the poetic repertoire.¹⁸ An analysis worthy of Levi-Strauss or Mary Douglas could, doubtless, be made of the dishes recreated and represented in verse, although to what extent such ‘verbal gourmandise’ reﬂected the reality or regularity of the feasts cannot now be established.¹⁹ If these were, indeed, ‘mythes de ripaille’, a feature of poetic descriptions not only of medieval Welsh feasts but also of entertainment in Ireland, they none the less constitute a striking and important element in any analysis of the concept of hospitality which the poets endorsed. Liberality within the hall was matched by an abundant openness at the door. The topos of the open door, devoid of the vigilance of porters and without lock and key, is effectively conveyed in numerous awdlau and cywyddau. Welcome and accessibility are sometimes evoked by the images of the house at the convergence of several roads (canffordd mil o heolydd ), of the hall without closure or of the household establishment where every kind of ofﬁcial and servant except a porter was employed.²⁰ Guto’r Glyn, in his eulogy to Meurig Fychan, the squire of Nannau (Merioneth), made a suggestive allusion which, perhaps, conveys more than a nodding acquaintance with contemporary household ordinances. He notes that the habit of the nobility (arglwyddi) of summoning the porter and closing the doors of their residences when meals were being served stood in marked ¹⁶ R. Bromwich, Trioedd Ynys Prydein (Cardiff, 1961), 5 and nn. Ascriptions vary in late medieval verse. ¹⁷ E. Gowers, The Loaded Table: Representations of Food in Roman Literature (Oxford, 1996), 3. ¹⁸ Examples with translation in E. Roberts, Food of the Bards, 1350–1650 (Cardiff, 1982); H. Magennis, Anglo-Saxon Appetites: Food and Drink and their Consumption in Old English and Related Literature (Dublin, 1999) (for suggestive comparisons). ¹⁹ The phrase is from J. Mann, ‘Eating and Drinking in Piers Plowman’, Essays and Studies, 32 (1979), 26–43. There are suggestions of a more regular provision in some of the poems. ²⁰ L’Œuvre poétique de Gutun Owain, ed. E. Bachellery (Paris, 1950–1), ii. no. 47, ll. 1–54; Gwaith Lewys Glyn Cothi, ed. D. Johnston (Cardiff, 1995), no. 17, ll. 15–30.

186

Llinos Beverley Smith

contrast to the ‘blessed court’ of his patron, where the door had no lock and where food was never denied (heb glo byth, heb gelu bwyd ).²¹ Unscrutinized and unﬁltered, the guest and the importunate caller, so it would seem, had the beneﬁt of an open and unhindered access to the homes of the elite. If openness was a quality approved and applauded by the poets, the household was also, most strikingly, the locus for the distribution of alms, the setting for a ‘charity of consumption’, which the poets, likewise, describe. Sometimes speciﬁcally identiﬁed as a virtue of the lady of the house, the obligation to provide charity and relief within the walls of the gentle dwelling may be illustrated in a very considerable number of works. The physical harbouring of the needy is conveyed by Lewys Môn (ﬂ. 1485–1527), who describes the comforts of the ﬁreplace extended by Margaret ferch Siancyn of Plas-yn-Iâ.l (Denbigh), just as Gruffudd ab Aron of Peniarth (Merioneth) punctiliously observed the Seven Works of Mercy by bestowing a bed, a roof, and a ﬁre to succour the crippled, the orphaned, and the poor.²² Sometimes, it is true, the offering made is unspeciﬁed, the poet simply referring to the giving of alms (cardod); on other occasions it is clear that money alms are being proffered. But a good deal of household charity was being accomplished by the distribution of food within the domestic setting. The identiﬁcation of entertainment and charitable giving, where food, drink, and lodging are the currency of generosity, is quite clear. Such an invitation of the needy into the domestic environment, where an immediacy of contact with the donor was assured, was, no doubt, facilitated by the perpetuation of the open hall as the focus of the domestic establishment. It is true that notions of privacy and withdrawal were not entirely alien among the Welsh elite. Houses like Bryndraenog (Radnorshire), the subject of a remarkable cywydd by Ieuan ap Hywel Swrdwal (ﬂ. 1430–70) and a residence whose building has been attributed by dendrochronology to 1436, boasted a ﬁne three-bayed open hall, but also a parlour with solars above. In Glamorgan, a house such as Castellymynach, the home of the celebrated Mathew family, also consisted of a small parlour in addition to its ornate hall.²³ Yet the hall remained the primary, indeed the only, accommodation in many Welsh homes across a broad social spectrum, and a sense of the social propriety and appropriateness of the design can, perhaps, be discerned in the approval which Dafydd Nanmor extended to the domestic arrangements at Llandygwy (Ceredigion), the home of Rhys ap Llywelyn, a patron who disdained the use of a parlour in his house.²⁴ ²¹ Gwaith Guto’r Glyn, no. 57, ll. 9–16; F. Heal, ‘Hospitality and Honor in Early Modern England’, Food and Foodways, 1 (1987), 330. ²² Gwaith Lewys Môn, ed. E. I. Rowlands (Cardiff, 1975), no. 70, ll. 23–30; Gwaith Lewys Glyn Cothi, no. 233, ll. 29–44. ²³ R. Suggett, Houses and History in the March of Wales. Radnorshire 1400–1800 (Aberystwyth, 2005), 44–56; Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales, Glamorgan: Medieval Secular Monuments, III, Non-defensive (Cardiff, 1982), 138–44. ²⁴ P. Smith, Houses of the Welsh Countryside, 2nd edn. (London, 1988), 37–71; The Poetical Works of Dafydd Nanmor, ed. T. Roberts and I. Williams (Cardiff, 1923), no. 11, ll. 33–6.

On the Hospitality of the Welsh

187

Moreover, although the duty to sustain the poor of the immediate locality is sometimes expressed, it is also clear that a more enveloping hospitality extended to a far wider constituency is also being envisaged. Especially noteworthy are the allusions to the welcome accorded to strangers (gellysb, pellennig, dieithr) in the vocabulary of praise. The literate Walter Map had already attributed to a Welsh ruler a comprehension of the sacrosanctity of a guest, while poets such as Siôn Cent (c.1400–30) would locate the reception of the powerless and needy within the Pauline traditions which enjoined the Christian to nurture the weak.²⁵ The poetry of Rhisierdyn (ﬂ. 1360–1400) salutes the lord of Penmynydd for his unstinting reception of distant guests (parchai bell westai o’i bwyll wastad ) just as another of the poet’s Anglesey patrons was portrayed as a man who showed kindness to strangers (da wrth ddieithriaid o don).²⁶ The coincidence of muniﬁcence, of the distribution of charity, the sanctity of the guest, and the permeability of the Welsh household are important themes. At ﬁrst sight, the habits of hospitality among the broad swathe of ordinary Welsh men and women stand in very stark contrast to the behaviour of its more prosperous elements which has so far been examined. Much of the poetry composed in the satirical vein has, as its motif, the issue of hospitality and food, or rather, their absence, where the niggardliness of the peasantry or the lower clergy, the dismal quality of the repast on the occasions when food and drink were proffered, form the subjects of verse.²⁷ In an inversion of the topos of the open and welcoming halls of the elite, the satirist allegedly encounters an unwelcome, dark, smoke-ﬁlled, comfortless, and inaccessible hovel, or a house with its doors ﬁrmly closed. Contrasting starkly with the abundant joints of venison and beef, the swans, and the game of the boards of the elite are the offerings of ﬂitches of bacon and sausages, as well as the humble cabbage, the common fare of the peasant diet, but also the items often encountered in the alimentary lexicon of satirical verse.²⁸ The subject of cheese, which the upper echelons apparently disdained at their feasts, formed the theme of a spectacular satire composed of seventy lines of strict metre verse by one mid-ﬁfteenth-century poet, while the watery concoctions of thin gruel, the bubbling and bitter broth tasting of bile ²⁵ Map, De Nugis, 20, 196; Cywyddau Iolo Goch ac Eraill, ed. H. Lewis, T. Roberts, and I. Williams (Cardiff, 1937), no. 94, ll. 63–94. See, generally, A. M. Hocart, The Life Giving Myth and Other Essays (London, 1969), 78–86. Cf. O’Sullivan, Hospitality, 212–13, for length of stay in Ireland. See also J. Kerr, ‘The Open Door: Hospitality and Honour in Twelfth/Early Thirteenth-century England’, History, 87 (2002), 323–35. The ethic of hospitality was, of course, much older than the Pauline traditions. ²⁶ Gwaith Sefnyn, no. 4, l. 20; no. 8, l. 32. ²⁷ D. F. Evans, Goganwr am Gig Ynyd: The Poet as Satirist in Medieval Wales (Aberystwyth, 1996); H. M. Edwards, Dafydd ap Gwilym: Inﬂuences and Analogues (Oxford, 1996), both outstanding studies. Satires were not aimed exclusively at the lower orders, however; see Blodeugerdd Barddas o’r Bedwaredd Ganrif ar Ddeg, ed. D. Johnston (Llandybie, 1998), 151–3 (Yr Ustus Llwyd, addressing Gruffudd de la Pole, lord of Mawddwy). ²⁸ Discussion based on the work of the poets examined in Evans, Goganwr and other studies; Gowers, Loaded Table, passim, for suggestive comparison with Roman satire.

188

Llinos Beverley Smith

(bustl), furnished a binary opposition to the ﬁne appellations, the beer and mead of the elite feast.²⁹ These were houses familiar with famine and hardship, where even the smallest of birds was left ravenous and where the importunate caller was turned away without food. A failure in charity and hospitality is also evoked when the practice of soliciting grain, cheese, or wool (yta, cawsa, gwlana) was the matter at issue, when the request of the poet or supplicant is often spurned.³⁰ Above all, there is in some of these poems a sense that the boundary between the legitimate seeker of sustenance and the oppressive and sinister vagrant can be easily breached. The rapacious guest (gwestai gwastad, gwestai chwai chwydlyd ) and the sturdy beggar also ﬁnd their place in the dramatis personae of the Welsh literary tradition in the late middle ages.³¹ Themes such as these were, of course, the expression in verse of much of the tenor of the legislative enactments familiar enough in late medieval England.³² Although English parliamentary legislation was not, at this period, normally current in Wales, the problem of the beggar and the unincorporated stranger had long occupied the seigniorial regimes of the March as well as the royal administration of the crown lands in Wales. In a fragmented political society, like that of medieval Wales, a sharp consciousness of outsiders (extranei), in the sense of those who lay beyond the lord’s jurisdiction, can be copiously documented in several lordships.³³ But a sense of the threat posed by the stranger, and the suspicion which he or she might arouse, can also be seen in the provisions enacted. An undated ordinance, current in the Principality of North Wales by the early fourteenth century, forbade the reception of strangers by Welshmen for more than one night, testimony, perhaps, to the ubiquity of the practice, while urban authorities, like those of the borough of Rhuthun, proscribed the entertainment of outsiders within the town precincts.³⁴ From the early fourteenth century the seigniorial regimes of the March, like many English localities, were also zealous in their attempts to curb the unlicensed beggar and would continue to monitor such activities for many decades to come. Beggars of sheaves or of wool, or those who responded to their requests, were to be ﬁned and, in a revealing ordinance proclaimed in the small north-eastern lordship of Whittington, those who presumed to seek grain, a practice designated by ²⁹ Gwaith Deio ab Ieuan Du, no. 16, ll. 1–70; C. Dyer, Standards of Living in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1989), 63; K. Mertes, The English Noble Household, 1250–1600 (Oxford, 1988), 109. ³⁰ Gwaith Prydydd Breuan, Rhys ap Dafydd ab Einion, Hywel Ystorm a Cherddi Dychan Dienw o Lyfr Coch Hergest, ed. H. M. Edwards (Aberystwyth, 2000), no. 5, ll. 1–40 (although the editor suggests that the subject is a thief ). ³¹ Ibid, no. 5, l. 9; no. 8, l. 15; D. H. Evans, ‘Ieuan Du’r Bilwg’, BBCS, 33 (1986), 110. ³² L. R. Poos, ‘The Social Context of Statute of Labourers Enforcement’, Law and History Review, 1 (1983), 27–52; M. K. McIntosh, ‘Local Responses to the Poor in Late Medieval and Tudor England’, Continuity and Change, 3 (1988), 209–45; J. Bothwell, P. J. P. Goldberg, and W. M. Ormrod (eds.), The Problem of Labour in Fourteenth-century England (York, 2000). ³³ Davies, Lordship, 231–48. ³⁴ Rec. Caern., 132; PRO, SC2/215/76, m. 14v ; SC2/215/70, m. 6v .

On the Hospitality of the Welsh

189

its Welsh name of yta (quod Wallice dicitur atta), were, likewise, to be subject to a substantial ﬁnancial penalty.³⁵ Such legislation assumed and demanded a circumspect, even a judgmental, attitude towards those who sought alms, and, while the sick, the decrepit, or blind might be sustained, it was decreed that beggars who were deemed to have goods on which they could live, or who were capable of work, should be punished. Coupled with a wholesale assault on the itinerant culture of ‘harpists, wasters, minstrels and rhymers’, and through the subtle elisions of language, the seeker of hospitality (gwestiwr, hospites) and the seeker of alms were assimilated into the ranks of the shirkers, the greedy labourers and the wasters familar enough to the historian of so many English communities in the period.³⁶ It might be tempting to see, in the materials so far assembled, a clear disjunction between elite and popular concepts of hospitality. The temptation must be resisted, and for a number of reasons. For one thing, the precise material and social status of those so fulsomely lauded for their profuse hospitality is sometimes ambiguous. Families such as the Gruffydds of Penrhyn (Caernarfonshire), whose wealth and extensive spheres of inﬂuence can be veriﬁed by contemporary archival sources, could certainly be ﬁrmly located within the ranks of the gentry (uchelwyr), thus endorsing poetic allusions to the life-style and qualities of their rank. But in legal and administrative parlance the term uchelwr is frequently equated with, and translated as, free tenant (liber tenens) or franklin (frankeleyn), and it is possible that a proportion of those addressed by the poets were, in terms of their economic condition, of a status akin to the yeoman tenantry familiar in England.³⁷ The importance of hospitality among men of this sort is, indeed, attested in Wales by the fact that some of the hall-houses of the upper peasantry have been identiﬁed, such buildings replicating the hierarchical arrangement of dais and canopy common in more afﬂuent homes. Second, the practitioners of the mainstream eulogistic tradition, in which generosity and hospitality assumed their centrality, and those of the satirical mode were often one and the same, the comic offerings of those like Yr Ustus Llwyd (ﬂ. 1350) or Madog Dwygraig (ﬂ. 1370–80) displaying a sophisticated command of the poetic technique and a mastery of literary traditions.³⁸ Likewise, the context of much of the satirical verse suggests the frequently light-hearted and jocular teasings of poets at feasts and other occasions when ﬂyting was allowed. It is equally clear that some ³⁵ Among much evidence, PRO, SC2/219/1, m. 22 (Dyffryn Clwyd); SC2/227/2 (Hundred of Rhuddlan, Flintshire); Shropshire Record Ofﬁce, 552/1/5b ( Tempsiter in the lordship of Clun); NLW, Badminton 14057 (Raglan); for yta, Aston Hall, 5827 (Whittington). I hope to discuss the legislation and its contexts on another occasion. ³⁶ Rec. Caern., 132 (ordinances attributed to Edward 1); ibid., 239–40; CPR, 1399–1401, 469–70; the Latin text of 17 March 1401 renders westours as hospites. ³⁷ From among much evidence, especially for the north-east March, NLW, Peniarth MS 404D, ff. 55, 69 (lordship of Bromﬁeld and Yale). For the Penrhyn family see A. D. Carr, ‘Gwilym ap Gruffydd and the Rise of the Penrhyn Estate’, WHR, 15 (1990–1), 1–21. ³⁸ Evans, Goganwr, 15–23.

190

Llinos Beverley Smith

of the poetry designed to convey the inhospitable ambience of peasant abodes was no more than a literary device, a theatrical foil by which the exuberant welcome afforded the poet at the home of his patron might be enhanced. A colophon to a cywydd attributed to the ﬁfteenth-century poet, Huw Cae Llwyd (ﬂ. 1455–1505), for example, recalls how the poet was rebuffed at the house of a peasant (taeog) only to be received with great joy at the home of his host, Jankyn Havard; while the same device was deployed to dramatic effect by Guto’r Glyn in his eulogy to one of his patrons in the lordship of Ewyas.³⁹ Nor was the importunate beggar the concern of the peasantry alone. We do not, as yet, know enough of the webs of interests and the moral agendas which engendered the enactments already discussed, nor do we know the precise role played by the gentry and peasantry in securing their aims. What can be claimed, with some conﬁdence, is that the customs of soliciting grain were continued and poets, as they described their journeys of yta (taith yta), found a ready response. From the early fourteenth century, when Bleddyn Ddu (ﬂ. 1330–90) undertook his taith yta from Anglesey to Iâl, to Deio ab Ieuan Du’s celebration of the kindly reception accorded to him as he sought subsidies (cymortha), or Siôn Mawddwy’s assertion in the late sixteenth century that he, too, subscribed to the practice, the habit was sustained.⁴⁰ Although the domestic arrangements and habits of the Welsh peasantry are undeniably opaque, it seems unnecessary to claim that they did not share, in many respects, in the matrix of values characteristic of gentry society. Many of the assumptions about generosity and hospitality which are revealed in the evidence from Wales would, of course, have been familiar in the elite households of late medieval England. Honour as an ‘incentive behind the reception of guests’, the reciprocities of inﬂuence and reward, the role of the household as a focus of charity are themes which several historians of English society have illuminated in their writings.⁴¹ Nor should the many similarities between the habits of hospitality displayed in Wales and those in England occasion surprise. A common culture of entertainment can be identiﬁed in the awareness in Wales of the literature of etiquette and the writings on food and cuisine current in late medieval England and more widely in Europe. It is reﬂected ³⁹ Gwaith Huw Cae Llwyd ac Eraill, ed. L. Harries (Cardiff, 1953), no. 18, ll. 1–32; Gwaith Guto’r Glyn, no. 82, ll. 1–70. ⁴⁰ Gwaith Bleddyn Ddu, ed. R. I. Daniel (Aberystwyth, 1994), no. 14, ll. 1–12 and n; Gwaith Deio ab Ieuan Du, no. 11, ll. 73–4; D. H. Evans, ‘Thomas ab Ieuan a’i Ysgowld o Wraig’, Ysgrifau Beirniadol, 19 (1993), 86–106 (for the practice in Glamorgan). ⁴¹ Kerr, ‘Open Door’, 322–35; F. Heal, ‘Reciprocity and Exchange in the Late Medieval Household’, in B. Hanawalt and D. Wallace (eds.), Bodies and Disciplines: Intersections of Literature and History in Fifteenth-century England (Minneapolis, 1996), 179–99; S. Hindle, ‘Dearth, Fasting and Alms: The Campaign for General Hospitality in Late Elizabethan England’, P&P, 172 (2001), 44–86; I. K. Ben-Amos, ‘Gifts and Favors: Informal Support in Early Modern England’, Journal of Modern History, 72 (2000), 295–338.

On the Hospitality of the Welsh

191

not only in the occasional survival of Welsh texts such as Y Gwasanaeth Bwrdd (c. 1550) but also in the fastidious concerns with the quality and arrangement of the napery and plate, with the nice protocols of service, with the skills of carvery, and with the servant establishment, all conventions to which the poets refer.⁴² A keen sense of hierarchy is also exuded by the acknowledgement of the ‘customs of hospitality’ (osb arfer), by the arrangement of tables and seating, and by practices such as the reception of guests ‘two by two at the dais’.⁴³ If, by the ﬁfteenth century, the English nobility were, with signiﬁcant exceptions, infrequent visitors to their estates in Wales, their castles and residences in the country destitute of the accoutrements of ﬁne living and entertainment which characterized their domestic establishments elsewhere, several Welsh gentlemen were invited to noble festivities in England, while marriage connections with gentry families in England, or the possession of landed estates on both sides of the border, encouraged an assimilation of English customs and habits of hospitality. Sir Edward Don, exceptional only for the survival of his household accounts, was clearly one among many who straddled the domestic traditions of England and Wales with considerable ease.⁴⁴ Yet, in a number of important respects, the contrasting habits of hospitality must also be addressed. The ‘reconciliation of magniﬁcence and economy’, we are told, was a constant concern in the noble households of late medieval England, and vigilance and moderation were qualities strenuously advocated in prescriptive literature and in household ordinance alike. Indeed, the ﬁne margin between liberality and prodigality was already exposed in twelfth-century courtesy books and in chronicles, while the passage of time served only to intensify the need for a prudential calculation of proportionality over a ‘fool largesse’.⁴⁵ Although a panegyric to parsimony is, perhaps, the last thing we should expect of the Welsh poems, it is striking that the virtues of restraint and discrimination in giving was not a prominent theme. It is the man who does not scrimp who is deserving of praise; he who shares his food and drink without counting the cost.⁴⁶ A further contrast is suggested by the treatment of the importunate stranger. Felicity Heal has mounted a powerful argument for interpreting the period between 1400 and 1700 as one when the English evinced an increasing unwillingness to extend the hand of hospitality to the stranger, and claims that, while ⁴² D. J. Bowen, ‘Y Gwasanaeth Bwrdd’, BBCS, 15 (1952–4), 116–20; E. Roberts, ‘Everyday Life in the Houses of the Gentry’, in J. G. Jones (ed.), Class, Community and Culture in Tudor Wales (Cardiff, 1989), 39–78. ⁴³ Gwaith Dafydd Llwyd o Fathafarn, ed. W. L. Richards (Cardiff, 1964), no. 48, l. 45. ⁴⁴ Among exceptions are the Greys of Ruthin and, among those addressed by the poets, the Herberts and Somersets at Raglan. See also Gwaith Tudur Aled, ed. T. Gwynn Jones (Cardiff, 1926), i. no. 60 (Edward Dudley). On Don see The Household Book (1510–51) of Sir Edward Don, ed. R. A. Grifﬁths (Buckinghamshire Record Society, 2004), and below, n. 53. ⁴⁵ Mertes, Noble Household, 104; Kerr, ‘Open Door’, 332; Heal, Hospitality, 25. ⁴⁶ e.g., Gwaith Lewys Glyn Cothi, no. 162, ll. 1–58; Gwaith Hywel Cilan, ed. I. Jones (Cardiff, 1963), no. 10, ll. 45–66.

192

Llinos Beverley Smith

his urgent needs might be requited, ‘the English did not possess a powerful ethic of openness to strangers, which would have deﬁned outsiders as ﬁgures to be protected and succoured’ and were deﬁcient as hosts.⁴⁷ While the plurality of experiences of the different geographical regions of England must be respected, other historians, working more speciﬁcally with the varied materials of late medieval society and with the issues of charitable provision, have likewise argued for a narrowing of the pattern of charitable giving. The normal transactions were those between known donors and known recipients, and, for much of the period, the voluntary mechanisms of almshouses, fraternities, or church ales were primarily intended for the indigent of the immediate locality.⁴⁸ Moreover, while the household would continue to occupy a prime position in the ‘mixed economy’ of welfare provision in England, it was the gates of the Englishman’s house that were generally ‘greasy with giving alms to the poor’.⁴⁹ The contrast with the norms of Welsh medieval society is quite clear, where the stranger and indigent together might still expect succour within the walls of the dwelling. Nor, despite some important parallels, does the Welsh concept and practice of hospitality conform in every particular to the Irish experience. In medieval Ireland a ‘law of hospitality’ has been identiﬁed in early law texts and in those of the later glossators, where an obligation to provide for the traveller was incumbent upon a professional guest-house keeper (briugu, brughaidh) as well as upon a broad swathe of the population.⁵⁰ By contrast, if a formally articulated ‘law of hospitality’ had ever existed in Wales, its imprint on thirteenth-century law texts is barely discernible; and although the term ysbytywr (hospitaller) is found, its presence has been plausibly explained not as signifying the professional provider of lodging but rather as a reference to the military orders of Hospitallers whose duties and rights as territorial lords are discussed.⁵¹ The hospitality identiﬁed in the law texts of Wales is the bundle of obligations of maintenance and billeting owed to the lord or his ofﬁcers, in forms such as cwynos (
On the Hospitality of the Welsh

193

coins prevalent in Ireland, and hospitality was not practised in the context of the tensions and strains which such obligations might arouse.⁵³ Nor, in so far as can now be established, was the connection of satire and curse as evident a motif in the poetry of the Welsh as it is claimed to have been in medieval Ireland. Although the intentions of the Welsh satirists are uncertain, the subtle nuances of performance now difﬁcult to recapture, and the distinction between humour and rebuke not always easy to fathom, the most authoritative study of the satirical genre in Wales has concluded that the ‘degree of true offence intended by even the worst insults is debatable’. If the impending threat of ‘quasi-supernatural reprisals’ or the fear of ‘lybelles of dispraise’ motivated the practice of hospitality in Ireland, evidence of the importance of such notions in Wales is much less secure.⁵⁴ If, then, we have correctly identiﬁed the character of the ethic of hospitality and its importance in late medieval society, how may its resilience in Wales be explained? Setting aside the environmental determinism which would depict the people of upland societies as necessarily ‘modest, unassuming and civil to strangers’, a functionalist stance would seek to lay stress on the relative exiguousness in Wales of a solid infrastructure of hostelries and inns in which the traveller might be lodged. True, Edward Don, as he journeyed from Horsenden (Bucks) to his Welsh properties, stayed not only at the homes of two gentlemen of Ceredigion but also dined and boarded overnight in several chambers (schambyr), for which payment was made.⁵⁵ It was also the case that medieval Wales was not as well provided with support mechanisms, such as hospitals and parochial institutions of charity, as were some regions of England, and although the household retained its importance as a vector of charity within English society, for the needy of Wales, domestic beneﬁcence was quite indispensable.⁵⁶ A further element which may help to account for the continuing role of hospitality within peasant society in Wales was the structure of labour and the practice of seasonal migration within the economy. Writing of the experience of twentieth-century Andalusian society, where itinerant labour was crucial to the rural proletariat, Julian Pitt-Rivers remarks that the provision of hospitality to the work-seeking traveller constituted ⁵³ C. A. Empey and K. Simms, ‘The Ordinances of the White Earl and the Problem of Coign in the Later Middle Ages’, PRIA, 75 (1975), 161–87. ⁵⁴ O’Sullivan, Hospitality, 28; T. Ó Cathasaigh, ‘Curse and Satire’, Éigse, 21 (1986), 10–15; Evans, Goganwr, 32. But see also C. McKenna, ‘Bygwth a Dychan mewn Barddoniaeth Llys Gymraeg’, in B. F. Roberts and M. E. Owen (eds.), Beirdd a Thywysogion (Cardiff, 1996), 108–21, and the comment in relation to the priory of Clifford in 1331 quoted in F. G. Cowley, The Monastic Order in South Wales 1066–1349 (Cardiff, 1977), 204. ⁵⁵ R. A. Grifﬁths, ‘Travelling between England and Wales: The Itinerary of Sir Edward Don in 1524’, The Carmarthenshire Antiquary, 40 (2004), 5–12. Welsh inns need further research. See, generally, B. Kumin and B. Tlusty (eds.), The World of the Tavern: Public Houses in Early Modern Europe (Aldershot, 2002), and, for the Mediterranean lands, O. R. Constable, Housing the Stranger: Lodging, Trade and Travel in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 2003). ⁵⁶ PRO, Chester 30/37, m. 45 (for establishment of a house ad pauperes ibid. hospitandum at Ewloe in Flintshire).

194

Llinos Beverley Smith

a system of ‘undifferentiated exchange’, allowing the host the opportunity to gain honour and enhance his community’s reputation and affording the guest the possibility of a future return of the charity extended. Moreover, such a society could distinguish between the legitimate seeker of sustenance and the shameless beggars or those who travelled in groups; the former treated with welcome and courtesy, the latter viewed as a nuisance and threat.⁵⁷ Social necessity, however, while it partly explains the continuing importance of the ethic of hospitality in late medieval Wales, does not entirely account for its persistence. Felicity Heal is surely correct to seek her explanations for the marginal status of hospitality in English society in the mentalities and moral economy of the time. Vivid observations of living communities, such as that of a Greek mountain village, where ideals of the house not only as a place of seclusion and shelter for its inhabitants but also as a symbol of the inclusion of strangers and outsiders and of the hosts’s social identity, evoke the image of Welsh hospitality which the poets portray.⁵⁸ The abundant largesse and the ethic of giving which we have identiﬁed as prime characteristics in Welsh verse, likewise, ﬁnd resonances in the values of Greek villagers for whom the image of the house as a cornucopia and the ‘positive release of generosity’ often exceeded ambitions for the aggregation of wealth. The Welsh of the late middle ages were certainly not innocent of instincts of acquisition nor unmindful of market modalities. But they were also a people for whom the esteem attached to material possession was moderated by an economy of regard, whose normative values were those of a way of life rather than a standard of living.⁵⁹ Such a portrayal sits somewhat awkwardly with Ranulph Higden’s assertion that the people of Wales were, by his time, acquiring habits of accumulation akin to the English.⁶⁰ It stands in marked contrast, too, with what one modern historian, writing of Scotland, has described as a ‘me-too endorsement’ of England’s ‘dazzling career of historical tape-breaking’.⁶¹ But it reﬂects a society which Rees Davies understood and which he so sensitively conveyed and dissected in his writings. ⁵⁷ Pitt-Rivers, ‘Law of Hospitality’, 103–7. ⁵⁸ J. Du Boulay, Portrait of a Greek Mountain Village (Oxford, 1974), 16–17. ⁵⁹ For the ‘economy of regard’, A. Offer, ‘Between the Gift and the Market: The Economy of Regard’, Economic History Review, 50 (1997), 450–76; Du Boulay, Greek Mountain Village, 38–9. ⁶⁰ Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden, ed. C. Babington and J. R. Lumby (RS, London, 1865–6), i. 406, 410 (his comments suggesting that eating at the homes of neighbours amounted to wasting their resources). I know of no evidence that hospitality was viewed or claimed as a speciﬁcally Welsh virtue in the later middle ages. ⁶¹ K. E. Wrightson, ‘Kindred Adjoining Kingdoms: An English Perspective on the Social and Economic History of Early Modern Scotland’, in R. A. Houston and I. D. Whyte (eds.), Scottish Society 1500–1800 (Cambridge, 1989), 249–50. Wrightson notes both Scotland’s ‘exceptionalist’ and ‘participatory’ traditions.

14 Cheshire and Wales Philip Morgan

In 1926 the ambitious New York publisher Alfred A. Knopf established a London ofﬁce, and in the ﬁve years before it went into liquidation in 1931, it had underwritten a series of single-volume histories of English counties, the Borzoi County Histories, of which eight were published between 1928 and 1930. Among its authors was the later Domesday scholar Rex Welldon Finn, who contributed a volume for Cheshire in 1928. These were quickly but carefully written popular histories, much used in schools, and Welldon Finn elegantly summarized the rhetorical traditions of Cheshire’s past. Of the county’s Welsh neighbours, he makes only three comments. We learn that ‘Cheshire was in a continual state of unrest during Saxon times as a result of raids by the Welsh.’ A few pages later he adds, ‘Cheshire’s story in Norman and Plantagenet days is one of continual trouble with the Welsh.’ Lastly, he offers an iconic narrative of that ‘trouble’ in the story of Earl Ranulf III (1181–1232), ‘he whom the Welsh besieged in Rhuddlan Castle and who was rescued by a hastily-collected levy of beggars and wandering minstrels from Chester fair.’¹ It is a story in which the county is continually embattled and threatened by a belligerent neighbour, and one in which the frontier is essentially stable if permeable. On one side of that frontier, so this popular tradition runs, the Welsh cast covetous eyes on English wealth and, on the other, the prudent Cheshiremen took steps to guarantee their safety. Historically, it was also a watery landscape of alluvial sands, supra-tidal salt marshes, and inter-tidal ﬂats now largely reclaimed, but then the ﬂood plain of the River Dee, the ‘goddess,’ or, in early Welsh poetic traditions, the Aerfen, ‘the goddess of war.’ It is to this latter name that Gerald of Wales probably alludes when, after his visit to Chester in April 1188, he reported that to the local inhabitants the shifting banks of the Dee estuary foretold the changing fortunes of England and Wales in warfare.² Here, indeed, was a constant neighbour and an old enemy across a natural border, the essence of Cheshire’s Welsh problem. ¹ R. Welldon Finn, Cheshire (London, 1928), 40, 48, 60. ² J. McN. Dodgson, The Place-names of Cheshire, I EPNS, 44 (1970), 21–2; Gerald of Wales, The Journey through Wales, trans. Lewis Thorpe (Harmondsworth, 1978), 198.

196

Philip Morgan

Both Welldon Finn’s speciﬁc narrative and a recurring theme of Welsh ‘otherness’ is to be found in various forms throughout the repertoire of Cheshire historical writing. But, as I shall argue, such traditions are less often the product of repeated experiences than the outcome of a repeated history with a particular origin. For Cheshire, the elaboration of such a history begins with a group of Chester texts of the late twelfth century, written at the apogee of frontier war, during which the modern pre-1974 county boundary was regularized. It was inherited and ampliﬁed by others in the later middle ages, and reached its ﬁnal form in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, with the publication of Henry Bradshaw’s Life of Saint Werburge and the performance of civic rituals in the city of Chester documented by Archdeacon Robert Rogers and his son, David.³ For Bradshaw and Rogers, as for their predecessors, Cheshire had always been what has been termed a ‘hot frontier’, characterized by a high degree of militarization in response to endemic warfare, usually, though not exclusively, in Wales.⁴ Bradshaw would characterize Æthelﬂaed’s foundation of the burh at Chester in the early tenth century in such terms, observing that she compassed in castle—enemy to hold out, Within the said walls, to defend the town Against Danes and Welshmen, to drive them all down.⁵

It is this emphasis on the county’s role as a frontier territory with Wales that might usefully be termed the ‘Welsh version’ of Cheshire history. It is in the English memory of these events, mostly composed by monks in the years around 1200, that we ﬁnd the creation of this popular Cheshire identity. A little after Gerald of Wales had visited Chester in 1188 Lucian, a monk of St Werburgh’s in Chester, composed a lengthy sermon in which both the saint and the city are used as illustrative exemplars. Henry Bradshaw’s early sixteenth-century printed life of the saint is generally accepted to have been based on a now lost hagiography of the late twelfth century.⁶ Lastly, there is a group of related texts comprising a history and genealogy of the constables of the earls of Chester, later the Lacy family, and their stewards, the Duttons, which survive in manuscripts of varying dates from Kirkstall and Whalley abbeys, but which may have originated at the Cheshire houses of Norton and Stanlow, both founded ³ Henry Bradshaw, The Life of Saint Werburge of Chester, ed. C. Horstmann, Early English Text Society, 88 (1887); Records of Early English Drama. Chester, ed. L. M. Clopper ( Toronto, 1979), pp. xxiii–xxxxvi. ⁴ R. Bartlett and A. MacKay (eds.), Medieval Frontier Societies (Oxford, 1989), pp. v–vi. ⁵ Bradshaw, Life of St Werburge, 141. ⁶ Selectively edited as Liber Luciani de Laude Cestrie, ed. M. V. Taylor, Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 64 (1912), cited as Lucian hereafter. Bradshaw cites a passyonary of the abbey, parts of which survive in a manuscript of the early 13th century as London, Gray’s Inn MS 3.

Cheshire and Wales

197

by the constables.⁷ There are echoes and borrowings between each of the texts which suggest an origin in a shared milieu. But, although Cheshire’s place in the expansion of the English kingdom was then of very long standing, the rhetorical tradition of these sources is of an embattled rather than a belligerent city. Two of the stories reported in Bradshaw’s life take place during assaults on Chester: the ﬁrst by an eponymously named Welsh king, Grifﬁnus, in the reign of the Edward the Elder (899–925); and the second by a coalition of ‘Harolde kyng of Danes, the kynge of Gotes and Galwedy, and Maucolyn of Scotlande’, during which the relics of St Werburgh were paraded on the city walls with miraculous consequences following incidents of impious stone-throwing. It has been argued that both episodes refer to the campaigns of Gruffudd ap Llywelyn in the 1050s and early 1060s, when the king of Gwynedd had brieﬂy recovered many of the Mercian conquests of previous centuries, but it may be premature entirely to discard an early tenth-century context at the time of the refoundation of the city in 907.⁸ In Bradshaw’s second miracle, the relics of St Werburgh were paraded at the city’s north gate, the guardianship of which is assigned to her in Lucian’s account. He had seen an important preﬁguring of the rebuilding of Chester’s walls during the early tenth century in the biblical rebuilding of Jerusalem. The Wirral, to the north of the city, had been the route of Scandinavian assaults and settlement from the 890s onwards, and St Werburgh, holding the city against all enemies, was especially to have the keeping of the north gate, to ‘confound enmity’. More signiﬁcantly, perhaps, Lucian also now saw the late twelfth century as a period of newly established peace, and his account of a tournament outside Chester’s walls in 1186 is included only to reinforce the point that ‘peace in the city is to be obtained by heavenly mercy and good works and not by the arms of nobles’. Chester had entered a new period of peacefulness guaranteed by St Werburgh and by the monks of the city, and Cheshire, a distinct and separate province, closed off from the rest of England by the Lyme to the east and its enemies driven out, was a second Jerusalem gloriﬁed and protected by God.⁹ Cheshire’s identity as a hot frontier with Wales was, as Lucian rightly foretold, over. The history of that frontier remained reasonably well known to Lucian’s successor, the author of a late thirteenth-century Chester chronicle, edited from a sixteenth-century version in Welsh hands as the Annales Cestrienses.¹⁰ Compiled at the end of the thirteenth century, arguably by Abbot Simon of Whitchurch (recte Oswestry), the annals seem to be original from the twelfth century onwards. They notice the death of Gruffudd ap Cynan’s son, Cadwallon, at Nanheudwy ⁷ The Coucher Book of the Cistercian Abbey of Kirkstall, ed. W. T. Lancaster and W. P. Baildon, Thoresby Society, 8 (1904), 237–43; Monasticon, v. 533–4, vi. 315–17. ⁸ VCH, Cheshire, v. pt 1, 24–5 ⁹ Lucian, 42–3, 60. ¹⁰ Annales Cestrienses, ed. R. C. Christie, Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 14 (1887). An earlier, though shorter version, survives in the library of Lichﬁeld cathedral: Historical Manuscripts Commission, Fourteenth Report, Appendix, Part VIII (London, 1895), 206–11.

198

Philip Morgan

in 1132, report the burning of Chester in 1140, and that the whole shire was laid waste in 1146 after the capture of Earl Ranulf at Northampton, together with later royal and comital campaigns. Ranulf ’s petition for military aid from King Stephen, according to the Gesta Stephani, was of great urgency; his lands had been ravaged, towns reduced to scorched earth or besieged, and his men were likely to be driven beyond the borders of the earldom by ‘those swarming savages’, the Welsh.¹¹ Ranulf, then allied with the presumably less savage but exiled Cadwaladr ap Gruffudd of Gwynedd, could do little to stave off the conquest of Tegeingl by the latter’s brother, Owain, but his steward, Robert de Montalt, was more successful against forces from Powys. It is their defeat at ‘Wich’ on 3 September 1146 that is recorded in the Annales. This last battle, on the Wych Brook south of Malpas, was precipitated by the previous military successes of Madog ap Maredudd, king of Powys, and is in accord with Welsh poetic traditions. The princely poets praise Madog for having struck England as far as the River Tern, the tributary of the Severn which rises on the Staffordshire–Shropshire boundary, and for raids further north. Cynddelw Brydydd Mawr refers to ‘Maes Didlystun’, the ﬁeld of an undated battle at Dodleston, south-west of Chester.¹² It was in this territory between Chester and Malpas that the last campaigns were waged, and it is this battle, half-forgotten and misidentiﬁed, which would later occupy a signiﬁcant part in the rhetoric of Cheshire history. The third group of texts concern the framework of military service undertaken in Wales by members of the earl’s household, most notably by the earldom’s de-facto chief minister, the constable. This, too, emphasizes the constant danger which Wales had posed to the safety of unwary knights. There are at least two major versions of the rescue of the earl of Chester by the constable. In Bradshaw’s life of Saint Werburgh, Earl Richard (1101–20) is said to have been intercepted by ‘wicked’ and ‘wyld walshemen’ during a pilgrimage to the shrine of St Winifred at Holywell, and is later rescued by William FitzNigel, crossing the sands of the Dee estuary between Hilbre island and Basingwerk. Most of the miracles recorded in Bradshaw’s life, like the abbey’s spurious foundation charter, compiled in the mid-twelfth century, served to explain the endowments of the abbey, and several belong to campaigns in the mid-twelfth century to defend lands and authority in Cheshire’s Welsh hundreds. It is perhaps signiﬁcant here that St Werburgh implicitly overpowers another virgin saint, St Winifred, whose relics are curiously inactive in the earl’s cause. The story also has evident biblical parallels in the actions of Moses, and in Cheshire more especially to Joshua’s crossing of the River Jordan and the ¹¹ Gesta Stephani, ed. K. R. Potter, 2nd edn. (Oxford, 1976), 192–4. ¹² J. E. Lloyd, A History of Wales from the Earliest Times to the Edwardian Conquest (London, 1911), ii. 491; Davies, Conquest, 49–50; J. P. Clancy, The Earliest Welsh Poetry (London, 1970), 142.

Cheshire and Wales

199

distribution of lands on the west bank, cited in the text. The allusions to two holy rivers, the Dee and the Jordan, provide some link to a variant of the story, disassociated from St Werburgh, which appears in other texts deriving from the two houses founded by the constables at Norton and Stanlow. A longer version preserved in the Coucher Book of Kirkstall abbey also adds an account of the constable’s duties in time of war with Wales, the liberties of his honour at Halton, and a range of other private jurisdictions. Some of the estates listed here were granted in Atiscross hundred and had been held by the putative ﬁrst constable, Robert of Rhuddlan, in 1086, but had presumably been passed to FitzNigel after the former’s death near Deganwy in 1093. In this adaptation, the story is shifted forward to the time of Earl Ranulf III (1181–1232) and the earl is rescued from a castle besieged by the Welsh (in later versions glossed as Rhuddlan) by Roger the constable (d. 1211), adding to his own household an extempore force of shoemakers and minstrels from Chester (in other versions they are gathered from the fair at Chester). In the aftermath, the earl is said to have granted the lordship and advowry of shoemakers and minstrels to the constable, he, in turn, granting that of minstrels to his own steward, a member of the Dutton family. A now lost charter of John the constable of c.1190 granted the magistracy of ‘all lechers and prostitutes in the whole of Cheshire’ to Hugh de Dutton, and it may not be entirely fanciful to hear an echo of Joshua’s capture of Jericho and the help of the prostitute, Rahab.¹³ Whatever the precise context of Earl Ranulf’s discomﬁture, this version was to become ﬁrmly embedded as part of the urban ritual of late medieval and early modern Chester, and the dark presence of the Welsh is a leitmotif of the city’s ritual calendar. For example, the speech written for the illiterate mayor Robert Brerewood in 1584, and learned by rote before delivery to the annual mayor’s watch on Christmas Eve in that year, explained its origins ‘in tyme of warrs with the welch: this citty beinge most endangered by the Enimy at christmas tyme.’¹⁴ By the time the story had reached the antiquarian writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the origins of Chester’s minstrelsy were ﬁrmly established as a response to the Welsh. In Sir Peter Leycester’s unpublished Historical Antiquities of 1672, the story runs thus, that ‘Roger having gathered a tumultuous Rout of Fidlers, Players, Coblers, debauched persons, both Men and Women, out of the City of Chester (for ’twas then the Fair-time in that city), marcheth immediately towards the Earl. The Welsh perceiving a great multitude coming, raised their siege and ﬂed.’¹⁵ The author of a chronicle associated with the Cistercian house at Dieulacres in the Staffordshire moorlands, the ﬁrst part of which may have been written in ¹³ G. Ormerod, The History of the County Palatine and City of Chester, 2nd edn. (London, 1882), i. 36. ¹⁴ Records of Early English Drama, ed. Clopper, 142–3; VCH, Cheshire, v. pt 2, 251. ¹⁵ Records of Early English Drama, ed. Clopper, 486–9; E. Baldwin, Paying the Piper: Music in Pre-1642 Cheshire (Kalamazoo, Mich., 2002), 70–5; VCH, Cheshire, v. pt 2, 253–4.

200

Philip Morgan

Chester in the later years of Richard II, returned to the themes of the twelfth century and added two ﬁnal elements to the ‘Welsh version’. In the account of Earl Ranulf ’s campaigns during the reign of Stephen he noted that in 1146, ‘the Welshmen laid waste the county of Chester. But they were stopped at Nantwich.’¹⁶ Nantwich occupies a special place in the development of Cheshire’s ‘Welsh version’, for it was here in the heart of the county, according to later traditions, rather than at Wych Brook on its border, that Robert de Montalt had defeated Madog ap Maredudd in 1146. In their evidence to the ScropeGrosvenor trial in the Court of Chivalry in 1385, for example, the family of Sir John Holford claimed that they had acquired the manor of Allostock in Northwich hundred after the battle of Nantwich by a grant of Earl Hugh I.¹⁷ It was the wrong earl, the wrong battle, and the wrong place. But the association of Nantwich with the high-water mark of an independent Powys was adopted in the antiquarian literature from at least Daniel King’s Vale Royal of England of 1656, and continues in most modern secondary literature. It is, with some irony, a Welsh reach which not even its princely poets sought to claim. Dieulacres abbey was founded in 1214 by Earl Ranulf III, and in the same year the monks at Poulton abbey across the Dee south-west of Chester were moved to the new site. The explanation given in the foundation history has been much cited: In 1214 the community of Poulton was transferred to Dieulacres by Ranulf, earl of Chester on the 10 May before Vespers, particularly because of the incursions of the Welsh at whose hands they had suffered many losses.

Like other elements in the ‘Welsh version’, the community’s move to Dieulacres has generally been seen to illustrate the persistent instability of the frontier throughout the second half of the twelfth century and has thus become emblematic. ¹⁸ Yet the foundation history says a good deal more than this in its narrative, and what is known of the early history of the house, both from written records and from recent archaeology, is deeply at odds with a reading of Poulton’s brief history as an impoverished house imperilled on a deeply unstable border.¹⁹ Poulton had originally been founded by the earl’s butler, Robert, in 1146 at the very moment of the campaign against Madog ap Maredudd, and on the very frontier which was then in process of regularization.²⁰ But, far from suffering losses at the hands of the Welsh, the house was quickly established as a favourite among patrons in northern Powys and continued to attract grants from these ¹⁶ London, Gray’s Inn MS. 9, f. 138v . ¹⁷ N. H. Nicolas, The Scrope and Grosvenor Controversy (London, 1832), 252–3. ¹⁸ VCH, Cheshire, iii. 124; VCH, Staffordshire, iii. 230–1. ¹⁹ M. Emery et al., The Archaeology of an Ecclesiastical Landscape: Chapel House Farm, Poulton (Cheshire) 1995 (Chester, 1996). ²⁰ Facsimiles of Early Cheshire Charters, ed. G. Barraclough, Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire (1957), 1–5.

Cheshire and Wales

201

lands throughout the thirteenth century, a pattern of patronage which accords well with the accommodation between Powys and its neighbours to which Rees Davies drew attention.²¹ Robert’s successors did not abandon their opposition to the suppression of Poulton’s independence in favour of Dieulacres until 1241 and there is every indication that the site prospered in the later middle ages.²² The only recorded ‘incursion’ was that of the serial burglar, John son of William the miller, cited in the mayor’s court in Chester in 1317.²³ Poulton, it seems, was an entirely apposite foundation which reﬂected the contemporary and historic concerns of the the county. Dieulacres is a different story and the foundation legend is both English and continental in its concerns, rather than Welsh. Robert the butler’s foundation at Poulton, essayed to pray for the safety of Earl Ranulf II while ‘he was in the King’s custody’ in 1146, until the surrender of Lincoln castle, is implicitly compared to that of Dieulacres, the fulﬁlment of a vision of Earl Ranulf III. Ranulf ’s involvement in the campaign against Louis VIII of France in the Midlands culminated in the capture of Lincoln castle and Ranulf’s grant of the title, earl of Lincoln in 1217. The signiﬁcant echo is Lincoln castle, ﬁrst the scene of the earl’s own discomﬁture, then of his namesake’s triumph, and it belongs to that period in which Cheshire’s western shift was challenged and the county reorientated towards England, not to the dystopian vision of a disturbed Welsh frontier. The persistence of such historical memories is signiﬁcant because it clearly framed the emergence of a provincial identity in the sixteenth century.²⁴ ‘Being Cheshire’ might entail recourse to a rhetoric of Welsh otherness, a recovered memory often displayed for external audiences, not least the crown and the papacy, and between the closing of the county’s hot frontier c.1200 and the end of the middle ages there is, as we shall see, a Cheshire apologetic which frequently deploys the phrase ‘in time of war with Wales’ to plead for remission of tax or the granting of favour. But there is often a cognitive dissonance between this identity and the reality of a cultural province of which both Cheshire and its Welsh neighbours were members. The territory assigned to the new shire of Cheshire in the tenth century may now look to have had a kind of inevitability to its shape, but this elides several stages in its evolution. The north is marked by the Mersey, the ‘river at the boundary,’ but by the eleventh century much of south Lancashire, then not shired, was clearly treated as an apanage of the county. Seventhcentury ‘Cheshire’ had itself been part of the kingdom of Powys, whilst its eastern neighbour, the English Pecsaetan, had controlled much of what would later become Macclesﬁeld hundred. At the time of Domesday Cheshire had extended far into north Wales, and included two ‘Welsh’ hundreds, Atiscross ²¹ Davies, Conquest, 231–6. ²² VCH, Staffordshire, iii. 231. ²³ CCALS, ZCHB 2, p. 91. ²⁴ T. Thornton, Cheshire and the Tudor State, 1480–1560 (Woodbridge, 2000), 44–50.

202

Philip Morgan

and Exestan, both the products of Mercian settlement. In these centuries Cheshire was an expanding territory, looking northwards towards the kingdom of the Clyde, westwards into Wales and further aﬁeld to an Irish sea province within which Chester traded with Dublin, Waterford, and Wexford. This ‘greater Cheshire’ did not survive the early middle ages, but its footprint was later echoed by Richard II’s creation of the short-lived Principality of Chester.²⁵ In the twelfth century a resurgent Powys under Madog ap Maredudd (d. 1160) would recover Cheshire’s ‘Welsh’ hundreds, whilst Owain Gwynedd (d.1170), king of Gwynedd, reconquered Tegeingl on the Deeside coast and the lands of Moldsdale, Hawarden, and Hopedale to the west of Chester itself. Cheshire’s shrunken boundaries were highlighted in the medieval prose tale Breudwyt Rhonabwy (The Dream of Rhonabwy), which reported that under Madog’s rule Powys stretched to Pulford, whilst the poet Gwalchmai ap Meilyr celebrated the expansion of Owain Gwynedd’s lands to the very ‘gates of Chester’.²⁶ The relics of these campaigns and of the frontier itself, a line of castles along the valley of the Dee, as well as a continuing legacy of tenurial arrangements characteristic of a violent border, would survive as the fossil remains of an older but redundant society. ‘Repair and insure’ clauses, such as the 1299 lease of the manor of Dodleston, called for rebuilding in case of ﬁre in time of war. ²⁷ At Dunham Massey in the far east of the county the new rental of 1402 would repeat that Ashley was held for the service of a knight for eight days at Chester in time of war, and that other lands owed ‘a man called a hoblar’ for ﬁfteen days in time of war with Wales.²⁸ No less anachronistic, though for slightly different reasons, was the 1303 lease of Great Edge near Malpas by Urian de St Pierre to Gronw son of Llywelyn son of Einion of ‘Trefuethyn’ (?Trefedwyn) in the parish of Caerwys in return for the service of a Welsh lance for forty days in time of war with Wales.²⁹ It can perhaps be argued that Cheshire’s frontier role never wholly disappeared, but simply lay dormant, to be revived occasionally and often dramatically as part of a national history, as it would be during Edward I’s conquest of Wales in the later thirteenth century. But it also seems signiﬁcant that there was no explicit mention of Wales in Earl Ranulf III’s charter of liberties to his Cheshire barons, a regional counterpart to King John’s Magna Carta, issued in the summer of 1215. The earl’s barons agreed to perform the military service ²⁵ R. R. Davies, ‘Richard II and the Principality of Chester 1397–9’, in F. R. H. Du Boulay and C. M. Barron (eds.), The Reign of Richard II: Essays in Honour of May McKisack (London, 1971), 258. ²⁶ R. G. Gruffydd, ‘A Welsh Poet Falls at the Battle of Coleshill, 1157,’ Flintshire Historical Society Journal, 36 (2003), 52–8. ²⁷ Eaton Hall, Eaton Charter 107. ²⁸ CCALS, DLT/B2, f. 208. ²⁹ CCALS, DCH/C/13.

Cheshire and Wales

203

due from their fees, but it is clearly service elsewhere in England which had been the subject of negotiation, and in a lengthy section the earl conceded that service beyond the Lyme, the eastern boundary of the county, would be by grace and at the earl’s costs.³⁰ The earl’s interests were now more ﬁrmly ﬁxed on England, and it was his demands for service there, rather than in Wales, that had been at issue. A new castle at Beeston, commenced in 1225, looked towards its partner at Chartley in Staffordshire, not towards the Welsh border. It has been plausibly argued that the earls of Chester were now remaking themselves in princely fashion, seeing their neighbours in north Wales as much as equals as enemies, their own status reﬂected in a new English provincial autonomy.³¹ When the Chester chronicler Ranulf Higden, writing his world history in the abbey of St Werburgh in the 1320s, characterized this new reality, he wrote that Cheshire had been a land of warfare and violent frontiers, but now the Welsh and the English were largely intermixed, and Chester was a city famous to both English and Welsh.³² His characterization of the peace is that which was established c.1200, not that which followed Edward I’s war, and it is conﬁrmed by the evidence of toponymy. Of Welsh names in Cheshire the late John Dodgson drew attention to the fact that major place-names exhibited features related to the British loss of the north-west from the seventh century, including river and boundary names which are the fossil remains of Welsh naming practices. Others related to distinct phases in the subjection of the territory by the English, familiar names for the Welsh such as Walton and Wallasey used disparagingly, and others, like Combermere and Comberbach, which are names ‘adopted by the English with reference to a respectable people’.³³ There is a similar diversity of naming practices in north-east Wales caused by the ebb and ﬂow of English settlement, with some predominantly Welsh areas, some predominantly English, and others with marked socio-linguisitic groupings.³⁴ What this might signify is crucially set out in Dodgson’s analysis of minor ﬁeld-names. Here he argued for a continuous presence of Welsh and Welsh-speaking inhabitants in Cheshire throughout the medieval and early modern periods, never a majority, nor even large in number, but one where the dominant English population was tolerant of a Welsh-speaking component. This Welsh population was also socially inﬂuential, notably in that part of south-west Cheshire centred on the medieval barony of Malpas and the ³⁰ The Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester c.1071–1237, ed. G. Barraclough, Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 126 (1988), 394. ³¹ A. T. Thacker (ed.), The Earldom of Chester and its Charters (Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society), 71 (Chester, 1991), 16–17. ³² Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden, ed. C. Babington and J. R. Lumby, RS (London, 1865–6), i. 34, 80. ³³ Place-names of Cheshire, v. pt 2, EPNS, 74 (1997), 354. The names derive respectively from the Old English Wealh (a foreigner, a Welshman, a serf ), and Cumbre, a word adapted from the Welsh Cymro/Cymry (a Welshman, Welshmen/Wales). ³⁴ H. W. Owen, The Place-names of East Flintshire (Cardiff, 1994).

204

Philip Morgan

hundred of Broxton.³⁵ It is a community, unlike its counterpart in north-east Wales, which has not attracted the attention of historians.³⁶ The existence of Welsh naming practices in south-west Cheshire suggests, at the very least, a knowledge of, and a continuing respect for, Welsh nomenclature, which may in part be the sign of a surviving ethnic minority, just as the occasional appearance in manorial accounts of the annual Welsh due, cylch (usually spelled kylch), suggests the survival of some Welsh customs. At other times it is clear from local ﬁeld-names that the region attracted new settlers. Social and economic ties in marriage and trade, and a shared dependence on the provincial capital at Chester were further incentives in the creation of a distinctive society characterized by assimilation and accommodation. These are themes for the ﬁfteenth century and for relations between English and Welsh in the borderlands to which both Rees Davies and Ralph Grifﬁths have drawn attention.³⁷ In transitional zones like Cheshire they may already have been well established. As estate records begin to survive in greater number after 1200, these experiences can occasionally be documented. In addition to the distribution of Welsh ﬁeld-names noted by Dodgson, there are, for example, modest concentrations of landholders and witnesses in the townships around Malpas, notably Cuddington, Macefen, and Cholmondeley, where Welsh names are not uncommon. In some, notably Cuddington, there is a clear acceptance of Welsh patronymics in the use of ap ‘son of ’, in others an easy mixing of English and Welsh personal-names which points to ties of marriage. Rees Davies, for example, drew particular attention to the parentage of the son of Iorwerth ap Morgan ap Iorwerth Foel of Chirkland, otherwise known as Morgan Yonge, a leading royal servant in Dyffryn Clwyd and Flintshire who brieﬂy ‘deserted’ to Glyndwr’s ˆ cause in 1403 and whose own son was Glyndwr’s ˆ chancellor and later bishop of Bangor. Yonge’s mother, from whom he took his name, was from a Cheshire family.³⁸ In and around Malpas Welsh female names suggest a reciprocal network of marital links. In the township of Tushingham, east of Malpas, Gwenllian is a name borne by several wives, including that of John del Knolles (ancestor of the mercenary captain, Robert Knolles), and the heiress Gwenllian le Costentin, daughter of William le Costentin, the mesne lords of Tushingham.³⁹ There were wives and there were also settlers. The township of Cholmondeley in the earlier middle ages had comprised a planned settlement, the tenements within which contributed puture (maintenance) for sergeants and works at the adjacent castle with its dependent chapel ³⁵ Dodgson, Place-names of Cheshire, v. pt 2, 354–70. ³⁶ A. D. M. Barrell and R. R. Davies, ‘Land, Lineage, and Revolt in North-East Wales, 1243–1441: A Case Study,’ Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies, 29 (1995), 27–51. ³⁷ R. A. Grifﬁths, ‘After Glyn Dwr: ˆ An Age of Reconciliation,’ PBA, 117 (2002), 139–64. ³⁸ Davies, Conquest, 424. ³⁹ Ormerod, History, ii. 654–62; CCALS, DCH/C/846, 849–50, 852, 857.

Cheshire and Wales

205

of St Nicholas.⁴⁰ Dodgson cites the appearance of the name ‘Meilyr’s clearing’ in Cholmondeley in early fourteenth-century deeds, which is perhaps to be associated with a Meilyr son of Hywel whose father had been granted an assart by Hugh of Cholmondeley in the second half of the previous century. Hywel is described as Hywel of Cholmondeley in other deeds and gave the name Mabel to his daughter, just as Meilyr himself named his eldest son, perhaps signiﬁcantly, Adam.⁴¹ This was a society at ease with itself, but nevertheless still capable of deploying a traditional rhetoric. At much the same time the lords of Cholmondeley had commenced a campaign to secure independence for their chapel from the mother church at Malpas. The right to appoint a chaplain was recognized in 1285 and 1323, and reafﬁrmed in 1333, but Hugh of Cholmondeley did not succeed in achieving parochial status, although the tithes were farmed from Malpas from at least 1318 when Hugh’s son, Cynwrig, is recorded as holding them. The Welsh personal-name Cynwrig, generally Anglicized to Kenrick, is common in western parts of Cheshire during the fourteenth and ﬁfteenth centuries, and Hugh’s choice of the name for his son is indicative of relaxed social relations. But Hugh was presumably equally relaxed about recourse to the pantomime Welshman who ﬁgures in his petition to the bishop of Lichﬁeld c.1322. Here he had claimed that Malpas church was more than 4 miles distant from Cholmondeley and that ‘the dead in time of war are buried in the ﬁelds because Malpas Church is so near Wales that part of the parish belongs to the Welsh and part to the English, so that the English do not go to the Church in war-time. On one occasion Englishmen dared not go to Malpas parish Church at Easter to receive the body of Christ for fear of the Welsh, but received communion at Cholmundeley chapel.’ The Welsh townships Is-coed, Bettisﬁeld, and Worthenbury were all in even further distant Maelor Saesneg (only Is-coed remained dependent on Malpas) and war with the Welsh had not threatened the tenants of Cholmondeley directly for more than a century. But just as it was possible to brandish a rusty sword in defence of an old privilege, so it was as serviceable in claiming a new one. Cholmondeley’s script and his traditional casting of the Welsh was for the consumption of outsiders, and the bishop duly rewarded the performance.⁴² Not surprisingly Welsh settlers and traders also found their way throughout Cheshire, some in the regionally speciﬁc commerce in salt, and others in the related droving of cattle. Welsh cattle were occasionally bought for the earl’s stock at Macclesﬁeld, and Nicholas Audley used his manor at Newhall, south-west of Nantwich, to fatten Welsh cattle for sale at the annual fair there in 1387.⁴³ The ⁴⁰ CCALS, DCH/A/5. ⁴¹ CCALS, DCH/A/7, 9, 10, 11. ⁴² CCALS, DCH/A/4, 15, 29, 37; R. Richards, Old Cheshire Churches, rev. edn. (Manchester, 1973), 126–7. ⁴³ CCALS, Cotton of Combermere, CR72/9/1; Accounts of the Manor and Hundred of Macclesﬁeld, Cheshire, Michaelmas 1361 to Michaelmas 1362, ed. P. H. W. Booth, Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 138 (2003), pp. xxx, lix.

206

Philip Morgan

vernacular form of the town’s name, Nantwich, from the Welsh nant, ‘white’, came to replace the manorial afﬁx of ofﬁcial records, Wich Malbank, in the course of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and Frog Row, the town’s western suburb, came to be known as Welsh Row during the ﬁfteenth century in allusion to the lodgings of Welsh traders.⁴⁴ In their own recension of this Cheshire history, Welsh historians have generally emphasized its role in the politics of English conquest. Chester was, of course, frequently the venue for Anglo-Welsh negotiations, and the city was an important command in royal campaigns in the wars of the English conquest after 1277. It was here that Llywelyn ap Gruffudd was to pay 500 marks annually to the English crown from 1267; here that he had ostentatiously failed to turn up to pay homage to Edward I in 1275; and here in 1281 that one of the commissions of the Arwystli dispute into the laws and customs of Wales was conducted, albeit that the witnesses were mostly lords from Broxton hundred in south-west Cheshire.⁴⁵ Such incidents are, in one sense, the mirror of Chester’s self-image as a bastion against Wales, the city inevitably the scene for both the duplicity and humiliation of the Welsh. This was already a familiar topos by the mid-twelfth century when the biography of Gruffudd ap Cynan (d. 1137) relates how Cynwrig Hir had discovered the prince of Gwynedd, a captive of Earl Hugh I, in chains in the market-place in Chester, possibly in 1093, but had rescued him while the burgesses were at dinner.⁴⁶ It is tempting to see the tale as a precursor to that other account of the city’s Christmas watch. Yet Chester was far from being an alien city to the Welsh. In 1278, for example, when ten hostages from among the leading men of Gwynedd were brought to the city to swear loyalty, they did so on the Holy Cross of Chester.⁴⁷ The choice of the relic was a careful one, and reﬂected the signiﬁcance of Chester as a Welsh pilgrimage site. The ‘cruciﬁx of Chester’ stood in the church of St John the Baptist and was the most valuable relic of the city’s most ancient church. Lucian, the monk of St Werburgh’s, had nevertheless paid deference to St John’s in his own sermon on the cross and Chester, and the cross was clearly venerated throughout the north-western province of which Chester was the centre. It was perhaps a measure of its inﬂuence in Wales that the fortelet on the bridge constructed across the Dee between Farndon and Holt in 1338 bore a cruciﬁx facing the Welsh side of the river, whilst Farndon church on the English side, appropriated by St John’s, contained a relic in the ﬁfteenth century known as the ‘black rood of Farndon’.⁴⁸ The Anglesey poet Gruffudd ap Maredudd ap Dafydd composed a poem in honour of the Chester cruciﬁx, probably while brieﬂy resident in Chester since he mourned his separation from Anglesey in some of his verse, and also recorded ⁴⁴ ⁴⁵ ⁴⁶ ⁴⁷ ⁴⁸

Dodgson, Place-names of Cheshire, III, EPNS, 46 (1971), 30–4. VCH, Cheshire, v. pt 2, 35. The History of Gruffydd ap Cynan, ed. A. Jones (Manchester, 1910), 133–4. Calendar of Chancery Rolls Various, 1277–1326 (London, 1912), 169. D. Jones, The Church in Chester 1300–1540 (Manchester, 1957); CCALS, DLE 50.

Cheshire and Wales

207

a cure as a result of a visit to the cruciﬁx in St John’s. He calls it ‘an image of Heaven’s Emperor by the lovely river-mouth’ brought ‘to the bright, ﬁne city in the fair land of England’.⁴⁹ The city had both a religious as well as a folkloric value in the traditions of Welsh writing. But later poets, it has been suggested, had a different view. Here commentators have detected a degree of ethnic hostility in writing about the city in the ﬁfteenth century, and of these the work of the Carmarthenshire poet Lewis Glyn Cothi has been seen as emblematic of Welsh attitudes. The poet had gone into hiding in north Wales following the battle of Mortimer’s Cross in 1461, and from that safe haven had attracted the patronage of the gentry of Powys and Dyfed for whom he composed a number of cywyddau gofyn or request poems. Several purportedly deal with real incidents which marked his visits to Chester in the 1460s, and later gave rise to a ﬁctional biography involving marriage to a Chester widow and residence in the city. In one, he complains that Chester had robbed him of his house, his bed, and its furnishings, and left him ‘more naked than a salmon swimming in a brook’, a litany repeated in other poems. In another, he requests a sword from a Dafydd ap Gutun of Oswestry to ‘whet on the heads of every villain in Chester’.⁵⁰ What are we to make of this literary tradition? Lewis, together with Guto’r Glyn and Tudur Aled, was happy enough to heap praise on the Welsh town of Oswestry; was Chester too English, too urban, or simply too unwelcoming of strangers?⁵¹ Most commentators have stressed the impact of the Lancastrian penal code on the Welsh in Chester, to which we shall presently turn, but it is important also to stress that most of these poets knew Chester. Even Cynwrig Hir’s rescue of Gruffudd ap Cynan was undertaken on a scheduled visit to the city. Was Chester then in any sense a Welsh city? The demographic sources are too fragile for certainties, but there is a good deal of non-cadastral material which suggests that Chester, like other English towns in the west such as Bristol, Hereford, and Shrewsbury, was at least ethnically diverse. Whilst ﬁfteenth-century Nantwich might develop its Welsh Row, the street of Welsh traders, Chester had no similarly named street or quarter, perhaps because its Welsh population was sufﬁciently ubiquitous. Certainly, Welsh names are increasingly frequent in the surviving records of Chester courts from the fourteenth century onwards, and Welsh residents are found both as servants and householders.⁵² By the sixteenth century some customs were sufﬁciently entrenched to draw the attention of puritan preachers, including that described as ‘Welsh weddings’, the custom of drinking around one’s neighbours ⁴⁹ A. O. H. Jarman and G. Rees Hughes (eds.), rev. D. Johnston, A Guide to Welsh Literature 1282–c.1550 (Cardiff, 1997), 38–40. ⁵⁰ Ibid., 232–3 ⁵¹ A. Breeze, Medieval Welsh Literature (Dublin, 1997), 152–3. ⁵² Selected Rolls of the Chester City Courts, ed. A. Hopkins, Chetham Society, 3rd ser., 2 (1950), pp. lvii, 31, 39.

208

Philip Morgan

(W. neithior).⁵³ But for as iconic a story as any of those in the ‘Welsh version’, one might look to the account of the year 1491 in the city’s chronicle. When one of the pinnacles of St Peter’s church collapsed at Christmas, it fell on two children: it injured an ‘English’ child of the former mayor, Ralph Davenport; and killed another, the ‘Welsh’ child, Tudur ap Thomas.⁵⁴ These impressions are consonant with the economic transformation of north Wales from the twelfth century onwards, which had immeasurably strengthened the power of its princes, and also brought its wealth and some of its people to the region’s principal emporium. They are impressions conﬁrmed by the developing pattern of Welsh involvement in the city’s elite in around the year 1400. I would suggest that the conquest of Wales after 1282 had little impact on the Welsh version of Cheshire history. The rising of Owain Glyndwr ˆ was an altogether different matter. As late as 1482 it was claimed that land in the manor of Burton, now valued at some £16 per annum, was let at over £20 ‘before the Welsh rebellion’. Likewise in 1445 the city had petitioned Henry VI for a remission of half of its fee farm, citing in explanation of their poverty the silting of the Dee estuary and the collapse of trade with Wales following the rebellion in Wales.⁵⁵ Urban decay may have been real enough, but the language of Chester’s petition has about it the ring of those earlier claims from the lords of Cholmondeley, and might easily be read as no more than an additional verse in the Welsh version. Yet the crisis in relations between Cheshire and Wales at the time of the rising may, indeed, have been signiﬁcant, and real enough to bring a pause to the reading so far advanced, that the county had, as it were, made its mind up about Wales by 1200, and that its histories thereafter were little more than a ritual and rhetorical reheating of a traditional and stale diet. In September 1403, in the aftermath of the battle of Shrewsbury, a writ of Henry, prince of Wales, to the city authorities called for the expulsion of the Welsh from Chester, both men and women, restrictions to the hours of daylight on the movement of Welsh visitors and traders, their disarming at the gates save for a knife to eat food, and a prohibition on meetings in taverns and the gathering of more than three together within the walls.⁵⁶ Such measures against the Welsh were the most extreme to be proclaimed in any English city during the revolt. Rees Davies called it a policy ‘very close to that of ethnic cleansing’.⁵⁷ It joined other prohibitions on trade, usually in arms and food, and ampliﬁed legislation from the parliament of January 1401 which had effectively disenfranchised full-blooded Welshmen from property transactions and ofﬁceholding in towns in the March.⁵⁸ It is little wonder, then, that commentators have seen in this code the source of resentment against Chester in later Welsh poetry. ⁵³ Morris, Chester, 335–6. ⁵⁶ PRO, Chester 2/76, m. 11.

⁵⁴ CCALS, DLE 135. ⁵⁷ Davies, Revolt, 291.

⁵⁵ Morris, Chester, 511–12. ⁵⁸ Rot. Parl., iii. 473.

Cheshire and Wales

209

In Chester a prohibition on trading was recorded within a month of the revolt in October 1400. The records of the early ﬁfteenth-century city courts are fragmentary, but there was at least one prosecution for selling goods to Rhys ap Gwilym in May 1401, and others in 1402 in the mayor’s court.⁵⁹ The plundering of cattle from Wales during campaigns in north Wales in 1401 and 1402 was also considered to be an offence against the ordinance. Nearly 100 Cheshiremen were indicted for driving over 1,000 head of cattle from the area around Caus castle and Welshpool in 1402, having spent a mere two nights in the prince’s service before deserting, probably in the autumn of 1401.⁶⁰ One of those indicted was Thomas Strange of Spurstow, later charged with trading without a licence across the Dee via the ferry at Eaton with the mercer Thomas Iryssh of Ruthin.⁶¹ A traditional economy could not be wholly blockaded, and these cases, together with warrants for individual exemptions, suggest that enforcement of the legislation was patchy. The city authorities themselves may have harboured some resentment against parliamentary legislation, and in 1401 reafﬁrmed ‘that every citizen shall be sworne so longe as he shall abide in the liberties to doe beare and drawe as citizens acordinge to their possession’.⁶² Even the prince’s administration took a relaxed view of some movements, in July 1402 granting a safe conduct to Hugh of Bromﬁeld, a servant of Master Hywel Cyfﬁn, the dean of St Asaph. Master Hywel had been one of those who had attended Glyndwr’s ˆ assembly at Glyndyfrdwy in September 1400.⁶³ But the signiﬁcance of the legislation, Rees Davies also argued, lay not so much in the extent of its practical enforcement but in its ‘reafﬁrmation of a mentality of separation’.⁶⁴ Was it that mentality which informed the opening passage of an unedited short Chester chronicle for the years 1385 to 1388? The concerns of the author ranged across the heady politics of the years leading up to the Merciless parliament, ending with the appointment of Thomas, duke of Gloucester as justice of Chester at the Cambridge parliament of 1388, covering en route the execution of the king’s friends earlier that year, and the campaign leading to Radcot Bridge in 1387 and Arundel’s naval expedition of 1386.⁶⁵ The chronicler also paid some attention to Richard II’s visit to Chester in the early summer, but he begins with a miraculous tale. ‘There were three Welshmen sitting in a cart at the Lach outside Chester when they were struck by lightning.’ The middle Welshman evaded injury, but his companions were killed, one divided into three parts despite not himself being struck, the clothing of the other miraculously cut into the pattern of an indenture. The Lach, or the boggy ground, is close to Chester’s western suburb in Handbridge, and on the main road into Wales. Now, I am not quite ⁵⁹ ⁶⁰ ⁶¹ ⁶³ ⁶⁵

CCALS, ZMB 2, p. 1r – v , 10r ; PRO, Chester 25/9, m. 25. PRO, Chester 24/20; Chester 25/10, m. 9. Eaton Hall, Eaton Charter 389. ⁶² CCALS, ZCHB 2, p. 97d. PRO, Wale 29/186. ⁶⁴ Davies, Revolt, 292. BL, Cotton MS Cleopatra D.ix, f. 78 v .

210

Philip Morgan

sure what to make of this story. ‘There were three Welshmen sitting in a cart outside Chester’ is a phrase, despite its modern valency as the catch-line of the comic, which remains elusive. But in the language of parliamentary legislation and princely orders, I would argue that Cheshire was now the unwilling recipient of the ‘Welsh version’ from those very authorities which had been its customary readership. Its receipt unbalanced the accommodation and assimilation which had been the mark of relations with Wales for nearly two centuries, no more so than in Chester itself. Here, in the years between 1408 and 1412, the urban elite, among them a substantial group of Welsh descent, was challenged by a faction led by the prince’s leading ofﬁcial in the city, the constable of Chester castle. In 1408 Sir William Venables of Kinderton, the constable, and his retinue were bound over to keep the peace with the mayor, the Welshman John Ewloe. Both were suspended from ofﬁce in 1409, and the city was brieﬂy governed by Sir William Brereton, until Ewloe’s re-election. Discord continued until 1411 when a love-day led to an arbitration between Venables and the new mayor, John Walsh, in which Venables paid reparations. Even this did not bring the dispute to a close, and in 1416 Ewloe, his son Edmund, and their Welsh retainers attacked a citizen in Eastgate Street and later the house of the Welsh-born future mayor John Hope.⁶⁶ In the record Edmund Ewloe himself is described as a full-blooded Welshman, integer Wallicus natus.⁶⁷ But Ewloe and his Welsh retainers arrived not from Wales but from Nantwich, perhaps from Welsh Row. What is clear is that intrusive royal and princely legislation made in response to Glyndwr’s ˆ revolt had unbalanced the factions which vied for civic control. The records here do not use the epithets ‘Welsh’ or ‘English’, as they would in similar circumstances in Hereford in the 1440s.⁶⁸ Ethnicity may have been a weapon whose use was enabled by the response to the revolt, but it was not the cause of discord. In the ﬁfteenth century the mentality of separation would be replaced by one of reconciliation throughout much of Wales and the Border. In Cheshire the age of reconciliation had come earlier, its reality masked by the Welsh version of Cheshire history coined c.1200. The revolt of Owain Glyndwr ˆ may have done little more than bring it up to date. ⁶⁶ Morris, Chester, 48–9. ⁶⁷ Grifﬁths, ‘After Glyn Dwr’, ˆ 145, 148–50, 159. ⁶⁸ VCH, Cheshire, v. pt 2, 60.

15 Crossing the Frontiers of the English Realm in the Fifteenth Century Ralph A. Grifﬁths

‘[The] English empire of the British Isles was an aggregation of countries (and, one might add, peoples). It was not a united kingdom, either in pretension or in reality. That was the legacy that the advance of English power in the British Isles in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries had left as a bequest for future generations.’¹ In the fourteenth century the movement of peoples from England to Scotland, Ireland, and Wales had all but ceased, and the political arrangements between the English realm and its neighbours remained largely unaltered until the sixteenth century. Yet what Rees Davies called ‘the norms of Englishness’ continued to extend their currency, notably in Wales if markedly less so in Scotland and in Gaelic Ireland. At the same time the reception of Scots, Irish, and Welsh settlers in England—the subject of this essay—reﬂected social, political, and cultural developments that contributed to changes in England’s relationship with the other countries of the British Isles. The land frontiers of the English realm were ﬁxed and well known by the thirteenth century, and no signiﬁcant adjustments were made before Henry VIII’s Act of Union made Wales ‘incorporated, annexed, united and subiecte to and under the imperialle Crowne of this Realme [of England]’.² After Edward I’s conquests, there was no call to fortify this frontier except during emergencies, as during Owain Glyndwr’s ˆ revolt. The contrast with northern England is striking: militarized Marches on each side of the Anglo-Scottish border, and designation of ‘The Borders’, underscored the separateness of the two kingdoms and the animosities between their peoples.³ Of yet another sort was ¹ Davies, Empire, 203. I am indebted to the generosity of The Leverhulme Trust for supporting the research on which this essay is based. ² W. Rees, The Union of England and Wales (Cardiff, 1948), 55; in general, R. A. Grifﬁths, ‘The English Realm and Dominions and the King’s Subjects in the Later Middle Ages’, in J. G. Rowe (ed.), Aspects of Late Medieval Government and Society (Toronto, 1986), 83–4. ³ P. G. B. McNeill and H. L. MacQueen (eds.), Atlas of Scottish History to 1707 (Edinburgh, 1996), 79–80, 451–3; C. J. Neville, Violence, Custom and Law: The Anglo-Scottish Border Lands in the Later Middle Ages (Edinburgh, 1998), pp. x–xi, 126–7, 160–5.

212

Ralph A. Grifﬁths

the channel-frontier that separated Ireland from Wales and England (and southwest Scotland), while the incompleteness of English conquests in Ireland made internal borders between Anglicized towns, English (or Anglo-Irish) lordships, and Gaelic countryside particularly unstable; that promoted population mobility and Irish folk, especially from the English lordships, even sought their fortune in England and Wales. The number of immigrants from all three countries may have been relatively small—greater from Wales than from either Ireland or Scotland—but what might be termed ‘reverse colonization’ had implications both for the English crown’s attitudes to Wales, Ireland, and Scotland, and for the cultural assimilation and identities of their peoples. Royal control of passage across England’s frontiers was contemplated only at times of crisis, as when Edward III died in 1377 or, more locally, when Chester authorities tried to regulate the movement of Welsh people in and out of their town in 1403. Attempts to expel immigrants were made in similar circumstances: of Scots when war with Scotland loomed; and of Irish when English authorities were apprehensive about their presence.⁴ Once immigrants had entered the realm, the law relating to personal status in England that was more precisely deﬁned during the Hundred Years War enabled those who did not acknowledge faith and allegiance to the king to be identiﬁed with greater clarity, and that had implications for those born in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. Place of birth became intimately connected with faith and allegiance, and began to deﬁne alien and subject in the British Isles.⁵ The distances travelled were far greater than those that have been estimated for settlers in the villages and manors of lowland England, where movement beyond 20 miles was rare. At the same time, the tendency of migrants to travel more readily in their teens and twenties may have been universal, in search of adventure, employment, or marriage. William Ossett, son of John Osset of Snaith in the West Riding of Yorkshire, took up an eight-year apprenticeship with an Exeter haberdasher, and so qualiﬁed himself for election as a freeman of Exeter on 31 May 1473. Whether he travelled overland or by sea from the River Ouse, William (and probably his father) had come a long way.⁶ Some youngsters, footloose or restless, even reached London, and attracted attention when they got into trouble. In 1473 a 34-year-old tailor, Thomas Cheseman, who had been living in the parish of Horndon-on-the-Hill for four years, admitted that he had come from Worcester, where he lived in St Michael’s parish for six years, and before that had wandered

⁴ Davies, Revolt, 290–1; below, p. 215. ⁵ R. A. Grifﬁths, ‘English Realm’, 90 ff.; K. Kim, Aliens in Medieval Law: The Origins of Modern Citizenship (Cambridge, 2000), chs. 5–7. English parentage was regarded as strengthening a claim to be regarded as English: below, p. 213; cf. CPR, 1446–52, 213, a ﬁrst-generation Scots immigrant. ⁶ L. R. Poos, A Rural Society after the Black Death: Essex, 1350–1525 (Cambridge, 1991), ch. 8; M. M. Rowe and A. M. Jackson (eds.), Exeter Freemen, 1266–1967, Devon and Cornwall Record Society, extra ser., 1 (1973), 57.

Crossing the Frontiers of the English Realm in the Fifteenth Century

213

through England and overseas; though claiming to be a free man, he was still illiterate.⁷ Immigrants from beyond the frontiers covered even greater distances. Travel by road or river overland from Scotland to northern England was far from easy, and there were hardly any English towns close to the border; but the Rivers Humber, Wash, and Thames gave access to eastern England by sea. In contrast, there was a well-populated and permeable borderland with the Welsh Marcher lordships, and the Severn channel provided direct communication from south Wales and Ireland to south-west England. Routes to the English midlands were long established via the Dee and Severn valleys, especially the cattle roads to Bromyard, Worcester, and on to Coventry and Birmingham, which was a ﬂourishing cattle centre by 1300; poet-drovers sang about their experiences.⁸ Moreover, in the ﬁfteenth century opportunities in noble and royal service in France were open to Welsh lieges as they were not to loyal Irish who were needed to confront the aggressive Gaels, or to Scots who were more likely to ﬁght for the French. These and other factors underpin the different experiences of England’s frontiers and the peoples on either side of them, and the popular attitudes that were expressed in English comic tales current by the end of the ﬁfteenth century: instructively, more of these were told in playful, if mocking, mood about the more familiar Welsh than about the Irish or Scots.⁹ The circumstances in which Scots, Welsh, and Irish made their way to England in the ﬁfteenth century were, therefore, signiﬁcantly different, and immigrants were treated differently in the towns and countryside where they settled and by the English government. The Scots were aliens; the Welsh were the king’s subjects; whilst the Irish experience was mixed—most Gaels rejected the king’s allegiance, while most who lived in the English lordships accepted it (unless they behaved as ‘English enemies’), and those who lived in southern and eastern towns certainly did so. There were probably more of these settlers in England following the demographic and social turmoils of the later fourteenth century, for the prosperous villages, manors, and towns of England—even in the north—attracted new tenants and urban migrants and encouraged mobility from beyond the realm’s frontiers. In their differing ways, they all contributed to the development of English society in the ﬁfteenth century.¹⁰ ⁷ Poos, Rural Society, 168, quoting Greater London RO, DL/C/205 f. 138. ⁸ J. F. Edwards and B. P. Hindle, ‘The Transportation System of Medieval England and Wales’, Journal of Historical Geography, 17/2 (1991), 130–2; R. H. Hilton, A Medieval Society, repr. (London, l967), 12. For the poems of Guto’r Glyn and Tudur Penllyn, see J. E. C. Williams, ‘Guto’r Glyn’, in A. O. H. Jarman and G. R. Hughes (eds.), A Guide to Welsh Literature (Swansea, 1979), ii. 220–1. ⁹ C. J. Neville, ‘Local Sentiment and the ‘‘National’’ Enemy in Northern England in the Later Middle Ages’, Journal of British Studies, 35/4 (1996), 435–6; R. A. Grifﬁths, ‘ ‘‘The Island of England’’ in the Fifteenth Century: Perceptions of the Peoples of the British Isles’, JMH, 29 (2003), 194. ¹⁰ P. J. P. Goldberg, Medieval England: A Social History, 1250–1550 (London, 2004), 46–7, 168–72; C. Dyer, An Age of Transition? Economy and Society in England in the Later Middle

214

Ralph A. Grifﬁths

Movement of people in later medieval England is often reﬂected in personal nomenclature, although the interpretation of Irish, Scottish, and especially Welsh names in English contexts requires care. Thus, Irish immigrants might be known by names that had originated in Scandinavia, England, or Wales as well as Ireland; and English inﬂuences had been strong in southern Scotland and continued so in southern and eastern Wales. At the same time, the distinctive patronymic style of Welsh personal names can be detected in English border counties from the late eleventh century, presumably as people migrated temporarily or permanently. Their names might be turned into surnames in the thirteenth century, from choice or by ofﬁcial or unofﬁcial usage by English neighbours, though such names were adopted as hereditary family names at varying stages and, hence, mask the chronology of settlement. It is claimed that in Shropshire by 1327 one man in ﬁve had a Welsh surname. Further east, descendants of Welsh nobility in west Wales acquired substantial estates in Staffordshire by marriage within a generation of Edward I’s conquests and took the name of an ancestor, Gruffydd ap Hywel (d. 1308), as their surname; in Henry VIII’s reign the family recalled its ancestry and commemorated seven generations of Grifﬁthses in Lichﬁeld cathedral. In different circumstances, Lewis John, a Welshman born of free parents ‘and of noble and gentlemanly stock’, presumably took his father’s name as a surname when he settled in Essex; to secure his reputation and position as a free man and wine merchant, in 1424 he sought testimonials from the mayors of Tenby, Pembroke, Carmarthen, and Cardigan, and from the reeves of Newborough (Anglesey) and Kidwelly (Carmarthenshire). His son and heir, another Lewis John, came to be known in the 1440s as Lewis FitzLowys, in hybrid style, and Lewis thereafter was the family name.¹¹ By the fourteenth century, too, Welsh descriptive names were used as family surnames in border regions, but with the same uncertainties of chronology; moreover, although the choice of surname might have been appropriate in one generation, it need not continue to be so. The Vaughans of Bredwardine in Herefordshire and their kinsfolk astride the border in the ﬁfteenth century are a notable example (from Welsh fychan, implying small or younger, though hardly so in every generation).¹² These caveats apart, it is apparent that neighbourliness as well as kinship identiﬁed Welsh communities even in diaspora. Migrants often maintained Ages (Oxford, 2005), 35–6, 39 (Welsh migrants), 75, 226–8; A. Cosgrove, ‘Parliament and the Anglo-Irish Community: The Declaration of 1460’, in id. and J. I. McGuire (eds.), Parliament and Community (Belfast, 1983), 40, n. 52 (Irish labourers). ¹¹ A. J. Kettle, ‘A List of Families in the Archdeaconry of Stafford, 1532–3’, Collections for a History of Staffordshire, 4th ser., 8 (1976), pp. viii, x, 107; R. A. Grifﬁths, The Principality of Wales in the Later Middle Ages: South Wales, 1277–1536 (Cardiff, 1972), 99–102, 162–3, 145–6, 274–5 (Grifﬁth); J. S. Roskell, L. Clark, and C. Rawcliffe (eds.), The History of Parliament: The House of Commons, 1386–1421, 4 vols. (Stroud, 1992), iii. 494–8 (John). ¹² See generally P. H. Reaney, The Origin of English Surnames, repr. (London, 1987), 316–19; T. J. Morgan and P. Morgan, Welsh Surnames (Cardiff, 1985), 14–16.

Crossing the Frontiers of the English Realm in the Fifteenth Century

215

contact with their homes, but (to extend Rees Davies’s conclusion to communities abroad) ‘it was in the neighbourhood, be it local or regional, as much as, or even more than, in his kin groupings that the individual found his social identity’—and in his seignorial relationships, too. ‘Part of the fascination of the histories of the western British Isles in the later Middle Ages is the opportunity to glimpse how these two very different paradigms of social consciousness and social and political power negotiated a working relationship with each other.’¹³ Owain ap Jenkyn made his will at Chicksands (Bedfordshire) on 11 May 1517, using his own and his father’s names, but he also used the alias of Humfrey Gough, by which he was presumably known locally: he may have been red-headed (Welsh, goch) and perhaps a relative was called Humfrey—or he simply liked the partly Anglicized name. Owen, a yeoman, lived at Chicksands with a house at nearby Shefford, where he wanted to be buried; he left bequests to Chicksands priory and Lincoln cathedral. However, he moved in a partly Welsh circle, presumably of local residents; he remembered Nicholas ap Hywel, Evan ap Bowen, and Hugh Vaughan in his will, and left money to repair local highways which he doubtless walked. He gave no indication of his Welsh roots, but the supervisor of his will was Richard Grey, earl of Kent, whose lordship of Ruthin in north-east Wales may have been the home of Owain’s forebears, as it was of other Welsh folk who lived on the Greys’ Bedfordshire estates. The road from Ruthin ran from the March via Warwickshire and the midland counties to London.¹⁴ The patterns of settlement of Irish, Scots, and Welsh in England were signiﬁcantly different. Irish settlers lived mainly in the southern midlands, around Oxford, in the west country, or along the roads from the ports of entry, especially Chester and Bristol, where an Irishman could occasionally rise to civic ofﬁce. Predominantly from Anglo-Irish lordships and towns, they were distinctive in speech if not always in personal nomenclature, and many were poor and not easily integrated in the society of the ports where they were most numerous. From the late fourteenth century, this migration was thought likely to denude mainly eastern Ireland of people needed to keep the resurgent Gaels at arm’s length and preserve English rule. The military and cultural pressures on border communities alarmed the governors of Ireland and caused growing concern in England, where even loyal Irish immigrants were mistrusted: hence, the attempts in 1394 and 1413–39 to repatriate them, partly to help hold the borderlands and partly to be rid of immigrants who were perceived as troublemakers in towns like Bristol ¹³ R. R. Davies, ‘Kinship, Neighbours and Communities in Wales and the Western British Isles, c.1100–c.1400’, in P. Stafford, J. L. Nelson, and J. Martindale (eds.), Land, Laity and Solidarities: Essays in Honour of Susan Reynolds (Manchester, 2001), 11, 16; below, pp. 224–5. ¹⁴ The Grey of Ruthin Valor, ed. R. I. Jack (Sydney, 1965), 74, n. 4, 81 (Humfrey was a name known in the Grey household some years earlier, ibid., 69, 81–3); ‘English Wills, 1498–1526’, ed. A. F. Cirket, Bedfordshire Historical Record Society, 37 (1957), 70–1. Cf. Richard Welsh, alias Richard Hews, probably a Welshman, who lived at Dunstable, where he made his will on 25 Aug. 1519: ibid., 71–2.

216

Ralph A. Grifﬁths

and at the universities.¹⁵ This is the context in which the parliamentary tax on aliens was extended in 1440–1 to include many Irish residents in England. The decision is best regarded as victimization of a distinctive group at a time when increasing parts of Ireland seemed to be falling from the king’s allegiance, rather than as an administrative blunder on the government’s part; Henry VI responded to protests by acknowledging that the predominantly Anglo-Irish in England should not be classed as aliens. This apprehension was a counterpart of the measures taken in Ireland from the mid-ﬁfteenth century to enforce ‘English cultural standards’ and to build fortiﬁcations that would shortly identify ‘The Pale’.¹⁶ The Irish, unlike the Scots, rarely settled in London or eastern and northern England, though the records of the aliens tax enable Irish residents to be located in unexpected places. In March 1441 the escheator of Surrey found that Thomas Awbery, born at Swords near Dublin ‘under the obedience of the king, as were all his ancestors’, had been granted a tenement in Southwark; when Thomas died in June 1440, this tenement had passed to two of his grantees who were anxious to protect their rights at a sensitive moment for the Irish in England. Two years later, a nervous young man, son and heir of Richard Kent of Ireland, called on ﬁve London citizens to testify to the civic ofﬁcials of Dublin, Drogheda, and Waterford that his father was well known in London and that he himself had been born in the parish of St James Garlikhithe; the young man was anxious to establish his credentials in both London and English ports in Ireland (and avoid the aliens tax).¹⁷ Irish artisans, retailers, and merchants settled in Bristol, Southampton, and other west country ports, whilst others were seasonal or itinerant labourers and servants, or poor priests seeking preferment in the English Church. Despite their exclusion from future taxation on aliens, prejudice against them did not wither, and the most notable example occurred in Bristol, where Irish merchants joined the commercial and civic elite. City ordinances conﬁned privileges to those from ¹⁵ The Libelle of Englyshe Polycye: A Poem on the Use of Sea-power, 1436, ed. G. Warner (Oxford, 1926), 37–40, 89; R. A. Grifﬁths, The Reign of King Henry VI, 2nd edn. (Stroud, 1998), 131, 134–5, 142–3, 167–8; J. L. Bolton, ‘Irish Migration to England in the Late Middle Ages: The Evidence of 1394 and 1440’, IHS, 32 (2000), 1–21. There were more Irish than Welsh at Oxford University in the later middle ages, and far fewer Scots: T. H. Aston, ‘Oxford’s Medieval Alumni’, P&P, 74 (1977), 214. ¹⁶ C. Maginn, ‘English Marcher Lineages in South Dublin in the Late Middle Ages’, IHS, 34 (2004), 113–36, and C. Parker, ‘The Internal Frontier: The Irish in County Waterford in the Later Middle Ages’, in T. B. Barry, R. Frame, and K. Simms (eds.), Colony and Frontier in Medieval Ireland: Essays Presented to J. F. Lydon (London, 1995), 139–54, for the social complexities of the English lordships. ¹⁷ CIM, viii. no. 158 (Awbrey’s forebears may have migrated to Ireland from Glamorgan, where Awbreys were well established); Calendar of Plea and Memoranda Rolls of the City of London, 1437–1457, ed. P. E. Jones (Cambridge, 1954), 50. For the distribution of Irish in 1440, see S. L. Thrupp, ‘A Survey of the Alien Population of England in 1440’, Speculum, 32 (1957), 266–7, 270–2.

Crossing the Frontiers of the English Realm in the Fifteenth Century

217

the English lordships, though the treatment of Henry May, a Bristol freeman who was victimized by Bristol’s common council in 1456 and argued his case at Westminster (and won!), suggests that stubborn prejudice need not prevent a determined Irishman from prospering in an urban setting.¹⁸ In Cornwall, the Irish were a fairly common sight if not always welcomed. The trade between Padstow, Fowey, Plymouth, and Looe and the southern Irish ports of Youghal, Kinsale, and Cork ﬂourished in the ﬁfteenth century. But when a ship belonging to Irish merchants was driven by wintry weather into Dartmouth, they were not treated hospitably. Two of the merchants were born as far away as Lancaster and Newcastle upon Tyne but lived and plied their trade in Drogheda; in January 1440 their ship was forced to seek shelter in Start Bay. They were following a local Dartmouth ship when its captain saw the Irish ship approaching, turned his vessel to attack, and sank it along with its cargo. In their petition to the chancellor of England, the two merchants insisted that they had desperately shouted that they were Englishmen and seeking shelter for their ship and forty-four men on board who would otherwise perish. They alleged that they were treated like foreigners and that justice was denied them locally because the owner of the Dartmouth ship was inﬂuential in the district. The case was put to arbitration, with unknown result; that very month parliament imposed the aliens tax on Irish residents in England for the ﬁrst (and only) time.¹⁹ Poor Irish religious who migrated to south-west England from the English lordships received a little more sympathy. In 1447 a refugee Austin canoness, Christine Holby, was treated gently. Kildare priory, in the marchland, had been devastated by Irish forestmen and the convent dispersed; Christine ﬂed to Devon, where she sought to enclose herself as an anchoress in a cell in St Leonard’s churchyard, Exeter. On 14 September the bishop instructed the precentor of Exeter cathedral to inquire into her situation to establish whether or not she should be allowed to remain there. A threat to no one, in charity it was found that she could stay, and a month or so later a forty-days’ indulgence was announced for all who would support her. On the other hand, a few years earlier, in October 1440, the archdeacon of Barnstaple felt it necessary to alert the bishop of Exeter ¹⁸ The Little Red Book of Bristol, ed. F. B. Bickley, 2 vols. (Bristol, 1900), i. 86–8, ii. 163–7; W. R. Childs, ‘Irish Merchants and Seamen in Late Medieval England’, IHS, 32 (2000), 33–42 (with a full account of Henry May); P. Fleming, ‘Telling Tales of Oligarchy in the Late Medieval Town’, in M. Hicks (ed.), Revolution and Consumption in Late Medieval England (Woodbridge, 2001), 182–4. Cf. Germyn Lynch from Galway, a goldsmith and citizen of London: T. O’Neill, ‘A Fifteenth-century Entrepreneur: Germyn Lynch, ﬂ. 1441–1483’, in J. Bradley (ed.), Settlement and Society in Medieval Ireland: Studies Presented to F. X. Martin (Kilkenny, 1988), 421–8. See also T. Bowly, ‘Bristol’s Trading Networks with Ireland in the Later Middle Ages’, MA thesis (University of the West of England, 2005). ¹⁹ A. L. Rowse, Tudor Cornwall (London, 1957), 74, quoting PRO, E122/115/7 (1498–9); A Calendar of Early Chancery Proceedings relating to West Country Shipping, 1388–1493, ed. D. M. Gardiner, Devon and Cornwall Record Society, 21 (1976), nos. 45a–d, 46a–b (1440–1), 70a–b (1455–6).

218

Ralph A. Grifﬁths

when an Irish priest was discovered conducting baptisms at Templeton chapel in place of the vicar of Witheridge.²⁰ Suspicion of immigrants turned to outright antagonism where the Scots were concerned. They and their kings might be implacably hostile to the southern kingdom, but numbers of Scots worked, traded, or settled in England. Most were seasonal labourers drawn to what seemed the more prosperous northern shires. Others—craftsmen, traders, and clerks—settled in or near the ports of the south-east, London, and East Anglia. They were generally mistrusted and in the border counties were often regarded as responsible for crime and disorder.²¹ Only a proportion can be identiﬁed with conﬁdence from personal names or descriptions, but fraught relations between England and Scotland for much of the ﬁfteenth century, and the fundamental question of allegiance, made integration in English urban and rural society more difﬁcult than in the case of Irish and Welsh immigrants. Moreover, shipping from Scottish ports to England (and from western Scotland to Ireland) seems to have contracted from the late fourteenth century, and that discouraged the movement of other than seasonal labour.²² Those bold enough to settle could sometimes prosper: Alexander Ramsey, a merchant with an unmistakably Scottish name, became churchwarden of St Margaret’s parish, Southwark, in Henry VII’s reign; and to be a Scot need not mean exclusion from civic ofﬁce in York, for three Scots were admitted to the franchise between 1501 and 1506 without becoming denizens. Indeed, a modest number secured ofﬁcial protection or, from about 1440, letters of denizenship. However, the Scottish parliament and the English government discouraged Scots from migrating south, and in 1479 the London ﬁshmongers petitioned to restrict Scottish merchants who came to sell salmon and eels; by the early sixteenth century, ‘whoreson Scot’ was a term of abuse in the capital. The parliament of 1491–2, faced with the prospect of war between the two kingdoms, ordered all Scots without letters of denizenship to leave the realm within forty days.²³ In York and other eastern towns prejudice against the Scots frequently surfaced and doubtless discouraged settlement. It was actionable as defamation and slander ²⁰ Register of Edmund Lacy, Bishop of Exeter, 1420–1455, ed. G. R. Dunstan, 5 vols., Devon and Cornwall Record Society (1963–72), ii. 211, 215, 394–6, 403. ²¹ Neville, ‘Local Sentiment’, 419–37; ead., Violence, Custom and Law, chs. 6–7; J. A. Galloway and I. Murray, ‘Scottish Migration to England, 1400–1560’, Scottish Geographical Magazine,112 (1996), 29–38; J. A. F. Thomson, ‘Scots in England in the Fifteenth Century’, SHR, 79 (2000), 1–16. ²² McNeill and MacQueen (eds.), Atlas of Scottish History, 239, 251. Ships from ports in the Forth estuary did enter Hull and Scarborough in the later 15th century: The Customs Accounts of Hull, 1453–1490, ed. W. R. Childs, Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record Series, 144 (1986), passim. ²³ M. Carlin, Medieval Southwark (London, 1996), 156; D. M. Palliser, ‘A Regional Capital as Magnet: Immigrants to York, 1477–1566’, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 57 (1985), 112; Neville, ‘Local Sentiment’, 431–4; Calendar of Plea and Memoranda Rolls of the City of London, 1458–1482 (Cambridge, 1961), 96, n. 1; S. Brigden, London and the Reformation, repr. (Oxford, 1991), 137, n. 45; SR, ii. 583.

Crossing the Frontiers of the English Realm in the Fifteenth Century

219

to accuse a man unjustly of being a Scot, and in the last third of the ﬁfteenth century aggrieved English folk were forced to demonstrate their allegiance by mustering inﬂuential witnesses to prove an English parentage and domicile. If some of the accusations were disingenuous and contrived for personal or business advantage—and made plausible by family origins in the northernmost English shires—most Scottish immigrants were lowly people unlikely to become landowners or urban patricians. York’s enfranchisement records for a thirtysix-year period (1477–1513) reveal that almost thirty men born in England were denounced as Scots, most of them craftsmen or retailers. The frequency suggests that these were not simply cases of mistaken identity. Some of the accused came from counties closest to the border—like Bartrum Dawson, a York city councillor of prominent family, who, in 1506, was about to be elected alderman. His enemies may have circulated the rumour that he was a Scot, compelling him to secure a certiﬁcate of birth and baptism from his home parish of Bamburgh.²⁴ Similarly, the life of James Wilson, a Scarborough burgess, was made intolerable in the 1490s by a rumour put about by neighbours that he was born in Scotland and owed allegiance to James IV. Arrested and put in the stocks, he appealed to Durham’s consistory court and Bishop Richard Fox’s vicar-general, who testiﬁed in June 1496 that Wilson’s parents had long been residents of Bishop Auckland, where Fox had his palace. But his problems were not yet over, for the king’s ofﬁcials required proof that he was English despite his parents’ domicile; several people testiﬁed that this was indeed the case. The incident may have arisen in 1496 because of a threatened invasion by James IV. Henry Tudor sought to avoid war by negotiating a marriage between his daughter Margaret and King James; his chief negotiator was Bishop Fox, who may have tried to quell anti-Scottish sentiment among northern English townsfolk.²⁵ Other instances occurred in Lincoln and Norwich. In the 1490s a Norwich bowyer who was said to have been born in Scotland had no alternative but to obtain a testimonial of birth in York, where the mayor enlisted no less a person than the earl of Surrey to write to Sir John Paston to do his best for the man. Townsfolk whose commercial dealings depended on reputation perhaps had more to lose than country folk, and the status of witnesses suggests that the threats were taken seriously. In short, Scots resided in ﬁfteenth-century England at their peril.²⁶ ²⁴ Palliser, ‘Regional Capital as Magnet’, 111–12; A Volume of English Miscellanies Illustrating the History and Language of the Northern Counties of England, ed. J. Raine, Surtees Society, 85 (1890 for 1888), 35–52 (‘Certiﬁcates of the English parentage of certain persons who have been charged with being Scots’, from York City Records). ²⁵ The Register of Richard Fox, Lord Bishop of Durham, 1494–1501, ed. M. Howden, Surtees Society, 147 (1932), pp. xxxvi–xxxvii, 29. Cf. the nervousness about Scots in York in the volatile atmosphere of 1480–4: York House Books, 1461–90, ed. L. C. Attreed, 2 vols. (Stroud, 1991), i. 224, 229–30, 309–10. ²⁶ Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century, ed. N. Davis (Oxford, 1976), ii. 480–1.

220

Ralph A. Grifﬁths

The experience of a Scottish knight and his family is both exceptional and instructive. In March 1406 Sir John Steward was captured in the company of the Scottish prince, later James I, as the party travelled to France. While a captive at the English court, Sir John married a lady in the household of Joan of Navarre, Henry IV’s queen; his brother was in the French king’s service. Lest there be any mistaking his unusual situation, John was known in England as ‘Scotangle’, though his family prospered. His son, also called Sir John (but only occasionally Scotangle), seems to have married a daughter of the English war captain Sir Thomas Kyriel, and, having served both Henry V’s queen, Katherine of Valois, and the king’s brother, Bedford, became a Norfolk landowner. Sir John II (and his son) served on the English side in the French wars; when he died in 1447 he was buried in Calais’s parish church. If the military route into the English gentry was not exceptional, that a Scottish family might follow it certainly was.²⁷ The case was quite different with the Welsh, who were more numerous in England than were the Scots and probably the Irish, too. Glyndwr’s ˆ revolt disrupted the Anglo-Welsh polity and the peaceful movement of people across the frontier, but immigration in search of seasonal work and other opportunities in the border shires and towns quickly resumed. In 1419–20 Welsh labourers were engaged by Beatrice, Lady Talbot for ﬁve weeks on her Shropshire manor of Blakemere at 4d. a week, and Hywel ‘werkman’ was paid 1d . a day for forty-eight days to thresh grain for her grange of ‘Yockynesyate’.²⁸ In addition to seasonal work on English manors, there were openings in the clerical, commercial, marriage, and land markets of the English Church, towns, yeomanry, and, signiﬁcantly, the gentry. The breadth of these opportunities seems to have set the Welsh apart from Irish and Scottish immigrants. The Johns of Essex, the Grifﬁths of Staffordshire, and the urban patricians of Bristol and Coventry, alongside families who remained rooted in Wales but acquired substantial interests in England—the Herberts, Morgans, and Kemeyses, for example—hardly have a match among Irish or Scots settlers. It is not possible to estimate the numbers of Welsh people in the realm, but there are ample indications of their integration in English society and economic life. Despite disruptions in the late fourteenth century (and wariness persisted for several decades after the great revolt), by 1450 the king’s Welsh subjects of native and colonial ancestry—traders, apprentices, cloth-makers, students, soldiers, and administrators—were settling in larger numbers in English towns from ²⁷ BL, Add. MS. 15 644, a reference I owe to Michael Bennett. Possibly a brother of the same name who died in 1449 was buried in a London church. Cf. two other Scots in Henry IV’s service, in Thomson, ‘Scots in England’, 2. ²⁸ Accounts of the stewards of the Talbot Household at Blakemere, 1392–1425, ed. B. Ross, Shropshire Record Soc., 7 (2003), 142; and for Herefordshire, Ll. B. Smith, ‘A View from an Ecclesiastical Court: Mobility and Marriage in a Border Society at the End of the Middle Ages’, in R. R. Davies and G. H. Jenkins (eds.), From Medieval to Modern Wales: Historical Essays in Honour of Kenneth O. Morgan and Ralph A. Grifﬁths (Cardiff, 2004), 73–5.

Crossing the Frontiers of the English Realm in the Fifteenth Century

221

Chester to Bridgwater, and along the drover and salt roads through midland and southern England in a process that put the colonization of earlier centuries into reverse. These individuals and families, sometimes recalling their Welsh origins, maintaining contact with relatives in Wales, employing fellow-countrymen, and counting other Welsh people among their acquaintances and neighbours, achieved a degree of assimilation in English society that was denied the Scots and Irish at the same time. This process is evident well before the quarterWelsh Henry Tudor won the English crown in 1485, though Henry’s success accentuated the trend. To a greater extent than Irish and Scots immigrants, some from Wales forged notable careers in towns like Bristol, Coventry, and Leicester, and in midland and southern English shires where they added a distinctive element to the gentle and yeoman classes.²⁹ The relative status of Irish and Welsh immigrants may be glimpsed in Bristol, the western metropolis that attracted considerable numbers of them. During 1492–3 a new church house was being built in Broad Street for St Ewen’s parish. Some of the building workers who were paid about 4d . a day were Irishmen, whereas among the benefactors ﬁnancing the building was a wealthy merchant of Welsh ancestry. Thomas ap Hywel’s family had been in Bristol since his father’s day, if not before, and Thomas continued to be known by his Welsh-style patronymic; his mother was buried in St Ewen’s churchyard, and he and his daughter worshipped in the parish church to which he had been a donor since 1470. Thomas’s family was part of a Welsh community in Bristol that seems to have grown in number and prosperity by the mid-ﬁfteenth century. The Irish, by contrast, were more often to be found among the labouring class, though, as the fortunes of Henry May demonstrate, the most ambitious of Irish merchants trading with Bristol might occasionally aim higher—but at the risk of attracting the kind of resentment that Scots encountered elsewhere.³⁰ Like Bristol, Southampton’s port attracted merchants and lesser folk from considerable distances, from Wales and Ireland as well as London and the west country, though their relative social status is less clear. Before 1500 one of its prominent inhabitants was Thomas Thomas, a man of Welsh origin whose father had taken (or been given) an Anglicized surname as John Thomas after he settled in London; the family moved to Southampton, where Thomas Thomas’s mother was buried in the friary. His wealth and position, based on trade, were reﬂected in the properties he bought (some in English Street, a nice touch!) and his appointment to civic ofﬁce; from 1486 he was controller of the customs. ²⁹ R. A. Grifﬁths, ‘After Glyn Dwr: ˆ An Age of Reconciliation?’ PBA, 117 (2002), 144–64; The Household Book (1510–1551) of Sir Edward Don: An Anglo-Welsh Knight and his Circle, ed. id., Buckinghamshire Record Society, 33 (2004), introduction. ³⁰ William ap Hywel, probably Thomas’s brother, was associated with the parish in the early 16th century. The Church Book of St Ewen’s, Bristol, 1454–1584, ed. B. R. Masters and E. Ralph, Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society (1967), vi.12, 16, 24, 84, 93–4, 97, 109, 141, 144, 157. In general, see Grifﬁths, ‘After Glyn Dwr’, ˆ 152–4.

222

Ralph A. Grifﬁths

These purchases cost as much as £100 in 1499 alone, while Thomas lived in a large tenement in St John’s parish. Yet he also kept property in London which his father may have acquired and Thomas spent a good deal of time there, though he wished to be buried in Southampton next to his mother. Just before his death, in December 1509, he found himself in trouble, probably through association with Henry VII’s detested ﬁnancial agents, Richard Empson and Edmund Dudley, who fell foul of the new regime. Thomas evidently basked in Henry Tudor’s favour, though his family’s fortunes were on the rise before 1485.³¹ As in Bristol, the Welsh in Southampton seem to have been readily identiﬁable, sometimes retaining their patronymic names, at other times being given the surname ‘Walscheman’. They were not all as successful or law-abiding as Thomas Thomas: a ‘Walsche woman’ called ‘Mawde’ was ﬁned in 1482 for sleeping with Laurence Barduche, perhaps a foreign immigrant, and Davy ‘Walscheman’ was ﬁned in 1511–12 for stealing. John Vaughan ‘alias Walscheman’ and Philip Vaughan, perhaps a relative, were quarrelsome butchers—and their wives no better. The precise origins of such people are less easily identiﬁed, though some—like Geoffrey Kidwelly who paid cranage and wharfage at Southampton in 1469–71 while importing eighty-nine pieces of tin—probably arrived from the south Wales port. In 1439–40, another Welsh merchant, John Davy, brought wine to Southampton, two butts of which were taken by carriers for sale in Salisbury. The Irish, by contrast, seem fewer in number and of a status that earned them anonymity in the civic records.³² Towns in midland England recorded the presence of Scots immigrants in addition to Welsh and Irish. Coventry’s rapid growth in population and prosperity in the fourteenth century owed something to the inﬂux of Welsh, Irish, Scots, and other aliens. By 1524–5, when the lay subsidy record was compiled, the town had contracted, but it still had its Irish Lane and could count an Irish physician among its residents. No longer were there any Scots, and one or two Welshmen were noted as if they were strangers. But a larger number of Welsh patronymics were still current, which suggests that the Welsh community was sizeable and individuals maintained their identity. Two of the commissioners who collected the subsidy were probably Welsh householders of means; both ³¹ Thomas’s son Sampson was also a wealthy burgess in Southampton, but his relationship to Thomas ap Thomas, who traded with Southampton via Coventry in wool and dyes in 1448–9, is unknown. The Southampton Steward’s Book of 1492–3 and the Terrier of 1495, ed. A. Thick (Southampton, 1995), 114; C. Platt, Medieval Southampton (London, 1973), 202–3, 259–60; J. C. Wedgwood, History of Parliament, Biographies of the Members of the Commons House, 1439–1509 (London, 1936), 846–7; The Southampton Port and Brokerage Books, 1448–9, ed. E. A. Lewis (Southampton, 1993), 189. ³² The Assize of Bread Book, 1477–1517, ed. R. C. Anderson, Southampton Record Society (1923), 34–5, 38, 54; The Book of Remembrance of Southampton (1483–1563), ed. H. W. Gidden (Southampton, 1930), iii. 80, 88; The Port Books; or, Local Customs Accounts of Southampton for the Reign of Edward IV (1469–71), ed. D. B. Quinn and A. A. Ruddock (Southampton, 1937), i 18; The Brokerage Book of Southampton (1439–40), ed. B. D. M. Binyard (Southampton, 1941), i. 100.

Crossing the Frontiers of the English Realm in the Fifteenth Century

223

became mayor of Coventry. Most of the taxable who may be regarded as Welsh with reasonable certainty were craftsmen, artiﬁcers, or merchants, concentrated in the wool and cloth trades and in some cases employing apprentices. Their fortunes were doubtless sustained by the drover trade from Wales which had no counterpart in the northern moorlands.³³ Welsh and Irish also settled in Leicester. As early as 1377–8 three Welsh men and one Welsh woman were paying a total of 1s. 4d . into the town’s coffers, presumably to ply their trade, while William ‘Irissh’ and ten others with the same descriptive surname paid 1s. each. Although Leicester, like other midland towns, declined in the following century, it is tempting to identify Thomas Davy (a common diminutive of David) as of Welsh descent. He was a grocer in the town by 1464 when he held a tenement outside the east gate. He may have made his fortune in Leicester while his parents, Thomas and Jane Davy, lived at Swinford, some distance to the south and closer to Coventry; they were commemorated in the Covely chantry in Swinford’s church. At Leicester the younger Thomas represented his district as auditor by 1481, and in 1488 he was elected mayor of Leicester and had sufﬁcient wealth to pay the ﬁfteenth imposed on the town by Henry VII. He had his enemies, but none the less was re-elected mayor in 1489, acted as steward of the town’s fair, and in October 1495 was chosen MP for Leicester (possibly in 1497, too).³⁴ London and its environs were a natural destination for Welsh drovers, clothiers, and would-be apprentices, whom contemporaries readily identiﬁed. In 1381 Ieuan ‘Wellchman’ and his wife, a ‘shewmonger’, lived in Southwark and employed one male and three female servants. The revolt notwithstanding, the tailors’ company counted several Welshmen among its members by the mid-ﬁfteenth century, and a comparative study of marriage patterns among various immigrant communities in Southwark has concluded that the Welsh were the easiest of peoples to be assimilated.³⁵ Lordship was an even more effective agent of social mobility and opportunity than business and trade. Noble and royal service, which had taken English governors to Wales and Ireland in the past, facilitated movement in the opposite direction, at least as far as Wales is concerned, as the career of Edward Vaughan illustrates. A groom in the household of William Fitzalan, earl of Arundel ³³ M. H. M. Hulton (ed.), Coventry and its People in the 1520s, Dugdale Society (1999), 47 et passim. The two commissioners were Richard ‘Rys’ or ‘Rice’ and Roger ‘Wales’ or ‘Waleis’. ³⁴ Records of the Borough of Leicester, ed. M. Bateson (London, 1901), ii. 163, 283, 323, 325–7, 333, 338–9, 453–5, 454–6, 462; Wedgwood, History of Parliament, Biographies, 262. Was he related to John Davy, wright, who was made a freeman of Leicester in 1475–6? Certainly his son Robert became a freeman on his father’s death in 1510–11, and Robert and Thomas Davy were shoemakers of Leicester in 1514–15: Register of the Freemen of Leicester, 1196–1770, ed. H. Hartopp (Leicester, 1927), 52, 62–3. ³⁵ Carlin, Medieval Southwark, 156, n. 30, 212; L. L. Duncan, Index of Wills proved in the Rochester Consistory Court, 1440–1561, Kent Archaeological Society (1924), ix. 6 (Thomas ap Powell, yeoman of Tonbridge, 1471). See Grifﬁths, ‘After Glyn Dwr’, ˆ 154–5, and W. P. Grifﬁth, ‘Tudor Prelude’, in E. Jones (ed.), The Welsh in London, 1500–2000 (Cardiff, 2001), 8–34, noting (17 and n. 50) some pre-Tudor settlers.

224

Ralph A. Grifﬁths

(d. 1487), by 1482 he was living in Southampton, perhaps as a result of serving a lord with estates in Sussex as well as the Welsh March where Edward’s family may have lived.³⁶ More strikingly, had the personal accounts of Sir John Don and his father survived, as they have for his son Sir Edward (c.1482–1551), the mechanisms by which a Welsh skein was woven into the gentle reaches of English society in the ﬁfteenth century would be clearer. Sir Edward’s Welsh ties of neighbourhood and kinship are apparent in a lifetime spent mostly in Buckinghamshire and in his visit to relatives and his ancestral heath in south-west Wales. As loyal tenants and servants of the dukes of Lancaster in their lordship of Kidwelly, his ancestors operated in a cosmopolitan seignorial environment and before 1400 adopted a descriptive surname, Don or Dwnn (English, ‘swarthy’); thereafter, service in the king’s administration in west Wales and in royal armies in France brought them into the circle of King Edward IV, with access to the marriage market among prominent English gentry. These factors enabled Sir John Don to acquire a substantial estate in Northamptonshire, Buckinghamshire, and Calais. The family maintained its interests in Wales and in Sir Edward’s time his Buckinghamshire home received frequent visits from Welsh relatives, acquaintances, and tenants as well as Welshmen from London and more locally. His two-month tour of southern Wales in 1524 was connected with the marriage of his daughter and heiress to Thomas Johns, a kinsman from west Wales who had taken his father’s name as a surname and was forging his own successful career in royal service.³⁷ Welsh clerics with similar familial instincts were attracted to the same region by the prospects offered by Oxford University and patrons with Welsh connections. William Morgan, from Glamorgan, was a prot´eg´e of John Marshall, bishop of Llandaff (1478–96) and an inﬂuential ﬁgure at Oxford and in Lincoln diocese. William studied at Oxford, where he was principal of a hall from 1479; by 1485 he was Bishop Marshall’s ofﬁcial. He secured preferment in 1488 as rector of Paulerspury (Northamptonshire), a beneﬁce which he held until his death; in June 1497 he was appointed master of the Hospital of St John the Baptist at Bedford, less than a day’s journey further east. His will, made on 20 August 1509, like the wills of other immigrants, reﬂects a lifetime’s attachments. He wished to be buried in the parish church in Bedford where he spent his latter years; he made bequests for building at Llandaff cathedral (though Bishop Marshall was long dead), and a larger sum of 20s. to repair the chancel of St Mary’s church at Coity (Glamorgan) where he may have spent his childhood. He bequeathed some of his possessions to the three sons of Sir John St John of Bletsoe (Bedfordshire) and Fonmon and Pen-marc, not far from Coity; the St Johns may have been the ³⁶ Anderson, Assize of Bread, 21, 23. ³⁷ Household Book of Sir Edward Don, ed. Grifﬁths, passim; R. K. Turvey, ‘Household, Court and Localities: Sir Thomas Jones and the Rise of ‘‘That Great Family of Jones of Abermarlais’’ ’, WHR, 22 (2004–5), 29–51.

Crossing the Frontiers of the English Realm in the Fifteenth Century

225

patrons of an intelligent Welsh youngster who migrated to the heart of England. Yet the links with Wales were not merely a deathbed memory for William Morgan: he employed a Welsh servant, William Grifﬁth, to whom he willed as much as 26s. 8d . along with any wages due at the time Morgan died.³⁸ The life stories of William Grifﬁth and his master, and of the Dons, Henry May, Sir John Steward ‘Scotangle’, and the rest illustrate one context in which ‘a process of social and cultural adjustment’ (Rees Davies’s phrase) took place in the British Isles during the ﬁfteenth century. They also demonstrate that neither the chronology nor the substance of this process was uniform: that the Welsh proved more easily and swiftly assimilable than the Irish or Scots reﬂected the changed relationship between the ‘English empire’ and its neighbours from the fourteenth century onwards. This also helps to explain why, in the mid-sixteenth century, the ﬁrst successful redrawing of England’s frontiers—the administrative union with Wales—could be achieved peacefully and the Reformation changes accepted in Wales with scarcely any dissent. ³⁸ The will was proved on 18 July 1510, with the elder St John, Master John, its executor. Bedfordshire Wills proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, 1383–1548, ed. M. McGregor, Bedfordshire Historical Record Society, 58 (1979), 92–3, 124; A. B. Emden, A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1957–9), ii. 1313–14 and (for Marshall) 1228–9.

16 Identity and Morality: Power and Politics During the Wars of the Roses Colin Richmond

Was there any period in history when there was some public ﬁgure, believed saintly by his friends, who has not been exposed for committing forgery, robbing the state or betraying his country? Marcel Proust, In Search of Lost Time, v. 5, The Prisoner and The Fugitive (2002), 582.

But in reality, even when a political truth is recorded in documents, these seldom have any more value than a radiographic plate on which the layman imagines that the patient’s disease is inscribed in some obvious way, whereas the plate simply provides a single element for inspection that needs to be combined with many others, all to be submitted to the doctor’s analysis before we can reach a diagnosis. And so political reality, even when one goes to well-informed men and seems about to grasp it, is elusive. Marcel Proust, In Search of Lost Time, v.3, The Guermantes Way, (2002) 238.

But just as we grasp one fact, other facts of which we never see more than appearances, escape us, and we see only ﬂat shadows pass, of which we say: this is it, that is what it is. Marcel Proust, In Search of Lost Time, v. 5, The Prisoner and The Fugitive (2002), 584–5.

There is an intriguing entry in a Westminster Abbey manuscript. It is on the sacrist’s roll of 1470–1 (WAM 19718). Under foreign receipts occurs the following: Sepultura domini Bastardi 10s. If Barbara Harvey is right and this refers to the burial of Thomas Neville, ‘the so-called Bastard of Fauconberg, a

Power and Politics during the Wars of the Roses

227

natural son of William Neville, lord Fauconberg’, then something unexpected in the Wars of the Roses had taken place: a decent burial was given to a traitor and a rebel.¹ It has been thought that after execution in Yorkshire only Fauconberg’s head was brought to London to be set up on the bridge: on 27 September 1471, according to Sir John Paston.² It looks as if the body was also brought south. It was buried at about the same time the head was set on London Bridge, the Westminster sacrist’s roll covering the normal accounting year from Michaelmas to Michaelmas. Did the head ever join it? Was there some devoted woman who, weeks or months later, brought it to the abbey, as Joan Ingoldisthorp less than a year previously had recovered the head of her brother, John Tiptoft, from the scaffold on Tower Hill and buried it with his body in the church of the London Blackfriars? Probably not. The burial of the Bastard in Westminster Abbey is more than a footnote in history. It was thirty-ﬁve years ago that I wrote ‘Fauconberg’s Kentish rising of May 1471’.³ Re-reading it today, I ﬁnd I have not changed my views on the nature of English political society in the interim; on the contrary, those views have hardened. Some of them are reﬂected in the quotations with which I have opened a paper that pays homage to a historian who was always more ﬂexible than I in his approach to the study of history. I do not mean he was ﬁckle; on the contrary, Rees Davies was the epitome of considered wisdom, not to say learned virtue. One feels (and is) a pygmy beside a historian of his stature. What is offered here is done so with the utmost difﬁdence. The death of Fauconberg is veritably Shakespearean in the density of its meanings. It was not tragic, though there was tragedy involved. Nor was it comic, although comedy is never far from the surface of the effervescent events of 1469–71, events which comprise the second act of the Wars of the Roses. The drama of Fauconberg’s life and death is most Tudor-like in its ﬁnal act. Richard, duke of Gloucester, his executioner, is revealed as a Macbeth, who did not have to be goaded into perpetrating an atrocity. (It was probably not his ﬁrst.) The killing of Fauconberg, who had been granted a pardon for his leadership of the rising of May 1471, was a breach of faith undertaken not for reasons of state but out of a desire for vengeance. Instead of making use of so nondescript (and isolated) a traitor, he was dispatched out of sight and thrust out of mind. ¹ B. Harvey, Westminster Abbey and its Estates in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1977), 384. The ‘if ’ needs to be stressed. The wording of the entry and the place of burial might be better interpreted as referring to a bastard son of Edward IV. I am grateful to Sandy Grant for suggesting such an explanation. I have not the relevant works to hand to check whether this is a possibility. Others might wish to do so. ² R. Britnell, ‘Richard, Duke of Gloucester, and the Death of Thomas Fauconberg’, The Ricardian 10 (1995), 174–84; Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century, ed. N. Davis, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1971 and 1976), i. 443. ³ EHR, 85 (1970), 673–92.

228

Colin Richmond

A theme of the Wars of the Roses too lightly touched on in recent historiography is that of demoralization. It is a lethal consequence of civil war.⁴ Yet, the tendency since McFarlane gave his British Academy lecture of 1964 has been to tone down the impact of the Wars. He wrote of the ‘chastened, indeed craven, mood in which those who served Edward IV and lived through the events of 1483–5 greeted yet another new dynasty.’⁵ This was not, he maintained, the spirit of 1297 or 1311. Nor, we might add, was it the mood of the politicians of the reigns of Richard II and Henry IV. All in all, in 1500 they were not the men of spirit their great grandfathers had been a century before. In the last forty years, however, historians have tended to minimize the damage wrought by the Wars of the Roses: to the English economy; to English culture; to English society in general; and to the mentality of England’s politicians. One begins to wonder sometimes whether a civil war was being fought at all. It is understandable: because so much appears normal. Worse had happened before, in the reigns of Edward II and Richard II. Moreover, historians are thick-skinned when it comes to the killing of the upper classes: it is what they deserve. It is true that the Wars of the Roses were not like current wars, civil or otherwise. They were pre-modern, not de-modern (as the current anthropological word has it), and therefore less lethal. Since the Somme, since Guernica, since Stalingrad, since Vietnam, since Chechnya, we have got used to the concept of war as total death. It was not in the least like that in ﬁfteenth-century England. Casualties were restricted to those in arms. But these, ‘at least among those of noble and gentle birth, were numerous’.⁶ That is the point, McFarlane’s point. The politicians delayed war for as long as they could, and even after the ﬁrst battle, at St Albans in 1455, they contrived to postpone the second for over four years: at Blore Heath in 1459. They were sufﬁciently history-minded to be able to recall the consequences of early civil conﬂicts. Yet, despite their efforts, war had to come, there being too many tensions, too much ambition, too many bad memories, too much injured pride for it not to. The war lasted a long time, few enough as were the actual weeks of campaigning, and the killing of those in arms (on and off the ﬁeld) was on a scale that was bound to bring demoralization among ‘those of noble and gentle birth’. It is little wonder that the Tudor monarchy so much got its own way; opposition to its policies was limited to a handful of hardy souls who duly paid the price for speaking their minds, as Edward, duke of Buckingham did in 1521, or, as in the case of Thomas More in 1535, for not speaking them. Brutalization, being the inseparable accompaniment to demoralization, is also a feature of war, especially a long war, whether that war is pre-modern or demodern: we shall examine it later. If demoralization leads to immorality, it also ⁴ K. B. McFarlane, England in the Fifteenth Century (London, 1981), 259: ‘Wars kill: they also demoralize. Civil Wars are usually the more lethal and the more demoralizing.’ ⁵ Ibid., 261. ⁶ Ibid., 243.

Power and Politics during the Wars of the Roses

229

has a bearing on identity. War, as everyone knows, brings out the best in some, the worst in others; while some ‘ﬁnd’ themselves, others ‘lose’ their identity, or exchange one for another. This was certainly true of the Wars of the Roses. As we shall see. There were reluctant warriors and enthusiastic ones; there were, in the terminology of Holocaust history, perpetrators, victims, and bystanders, though the proportions were different.⁷ It is changing and changed personalities that will occupy us most, those persons whose role is either ambivalent or hard to interpret, or those who, like Richard Neville, earl of Warwick, John Tiptoft, earl of Worcester, and above all Richard, duke of Gloucester, take on a ‘lethal identity’. How brutalized were they by a war which brought them at ﬁrst good fortune, but in the end death? ‘A great ideal, when impracticable, generally turns into a white elephant or worse’, wrote Beryl Smalley.⁸ This could truly be said of Henry V’s war against the king of France. On Henry’s death, an imperialist war was inherited by English politicians, who had neither his idealistic vision nor his strength of will to bring it to a successful conclusion. After the death of John, duke of Bedford in 1435, their failure resulted in the Wars of the Roses: Miss Smalley’s ‘worse’. Before the ‘worse’, and as an essential prelude to it, there was a time of disastrous dithering. The war in France had to be brought to an end by one means or another; if that end were ineffectually pursued nothing but undigniﬁed defeat could be expected. The dithering duly produced it. The nobility and greater gentry, many still keener on war than they were on peace, went through agonies of indecision. Not every one of them had wished to ﬁght in Henry V’s war, but the vast majority who did were saved the traumas of a peacetime existence: they had simply to ‘get stuck into’ the French, rather than their own tenants and neighbours. Their duty was clear cut; what constituted an honourable life was crystal clear. Not so when the politicians dithered between one policy and another, having discovered that Henry VI was incapable of taking the lead the realm both expected and required. Then everything became muddied and a muddle. The pointless public life of Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, and the directionless existence of Sir Thomas Malory stand as extreme examples of the moral dilemma which the English upper classes had to face in the second quarter of the ﬁfteenth century. It is only to be wondered at that it took them so long to acquire the dirty habits engendered by civil discord. It says much for English aristocratic hauteur that a decade passed before at Wakeﬁeld the gloves were well and truly off. It is no doubt signiﬁcant that it was a parvenu, and a female parvenu at that, who had to show them the way. Alice Chaucer, dowager duchess of Suffolk, did not actually put her armour on, but as an early, and by far the most illustrious, deserter from the House of Lancaster she set an example of perﬁdy that only ⁷ For the proportions in the Wars of the Roses see C. Richmond, ‘The Nobility and the Wars of the Roses, 1459–61, Nottingham Medieval Studies, 21 (1977), 71–85. ⁸ B. Smalley (ed.), Trends in Medieval Political Thought (Oxford, 1965), p. xii.

230

Colin Richmond

Marlowe could have done justice to. Alice was the Greatest Turncoat of Them All. There has been an unwarranted reluctance to say so.⁹ Admiration for Alice’s intelligence (no ﬁfteenth-century male intelligence after all came close to it), a faulty aesthetic that has been obsequious when confronted by her ﬁctitious ‘piety’ (the only piety she went in for was that of the out-and-out snob), and an odd reluctance in this day and age to speak ill of the ‘fairer sex’ have obscured the truth. Marrying her only son, John de la Pole, to Elizabeth Plantagenet, daughter of the duke of York, may have been foresighted in 1458; it was also an astonishing turnaround: he had been previously married to his cousin, Margaret Beaufort. Moreover, Alice had been close to Henry VI, from whom she had received many favours, one of them having been the Garter (which she had the gall to depict herself wearing on her tomb efﬁgy at Ewelme), and even closer to Margaret of Anjou. Her coat-turning was therefore monumental in its effrontery. It must also have been wounding, possibly mortally where the fate of the House of Lancaster was concerned. Disloyalty as a theme of the Wars of the Roses would have to start with Alice. If her male counterparts were wondering who they were and what they should do, Alice had no equivalent doubts. She knew who she was, her grandiose tomb proclaiming not that she was a Chaucer but a Roet, a Burghersh, and above all a de la Pole. Nor did she simply disguise her descent at Ewelme, rebuilding the church to make it appear older and therefore nobler than it was. Above all Alice knew what she had to do. The Paston Letters are testimony to her single-minded pursuit of what was her own and of what was not her own but ought to be. Rather than Alice, duchess of Suffolk, it is John Lord Wenlock who is reckoned to be the best example of a turncoat.¹⁰ She was a successful trimmer. He, on the other hand, got his trimming all wrong, being cut down at the Battle of Tewkesbury ﬁghting for the party from which he had been expelled even before it had become one, being suspended from ofﬁce as the queen’s chamberlain in 1453 for having shown too much favour to Richard, duke of York.¹¹ This is not the occasion to discuss Wenlock’s later convoluted career at any length: I hope to do so on another occasion. A few comments are, however, in order here. It is to be noted that he was a soldier before he became a diplomat. He remained soldierly until the end, ﬁghting in half a dozen battles before his last, conducting three sieges, and leading the stunningly successful raid on Sandwich ⁹ Rowena Archer is to be excepted from this stricture: I owe my understanding of Alice, such as it is, to her; see, e.g., her biography in ODNB. ¹⁰ For Wenlock see J. S. Roskell, ‘John Lord Wenlock of Someries’, one of his classic biographies, in his Parliament and Politics in Late Medieval England, 3 vols. (London, 1981–3), ii. ch. 10; and Margaret Kekewich’s biography in ODNB. ¹¹ D. A. L. Morgan, ‘The House of Policy: The Political Rule of the Late Plantagenet Household, 1422–85’, in D. Starkey et al. (eds.), The English Court (Harlow, 1987), 49–50; M. L. Kekewich et al. (eds.), The Politics of Fifteenth-century England: John Vale’s Book (Stroud, 1995), 173.

Power and Politics during the Wars of the Roses

231

in January 1460. He had ﬁrst served with Henry V. Fifty years later he was killed ﬁghting for his grandson. It is what he did in between that has earned him a bad name among historians. He lacked judgement, they are prone to suggest, because having been enormously inﬂuential with, and hugely rewarded by, Edward of York, Wenlock supported Richard, earl of Warwick in 1469 and his former employer, Margaret of Anjou, in 1471. He unaccountably switched sides and (unlike the king’s brother, George, duke of Clarence) did not switch back again. Was he untrustworthy, as the duke of Somerset, who was behind his dismissal in 1453, evidently believed? No more than most is the likely answer. One must look elsewhere for why he had his changes of heart. Exactly where, lacking all but circumstantial evidence, is hard to say. A crisis of identity might seem too pat an explanation. Yet for those whose mental formation had occurred before 1422 (or, stretching a point, before the mid-1430s), the events of the third quarter of the century were unhinging. Sir John Fastolf died in 1459; he was saved the decision-making forced upon those who survived, as did Wenlock, into the restless years between then and the mid-1490s. Felicity Riddy has indicated that she detects a loss of nerve in the literature of the middle years of the century; there was, she believes, a collapse in morale, long before the demoralization brought about by the Wars of the Roses.¹² There was certainly an empire mislaid, even if there was no failure of the imperial idea: the Yorkist programme proclaimed it, Edward IV invaded France in 1475, the ﬁrst two Tudor monarchs followed suit. I am less sure than she is. The English were no less arrogant after 1450 than before it: the anti-French chapter thirteen of Fortescue’s Governance was not reworked. Nor does John, lord Wenlock seem to me a bewildered post-war commander, like say General Westmoreland after defeat in Vietnam. And he was no Colonel Blimp. I think of him as the chivalrous old warhorse Michael K. Jones once memorably called him. Chivalry: there is a word not so far deployed. It is an odd word in the context of the Wars of the Roses. It is an odd word at any time, altogether too much of a carpet-bag of one to be ransacked to any advantage at the present juncture. Wenlock warrants a third and ﬁnal paragraph. He was a man of advanced taste, to which the Wenlock chapel in Luton parish church and the gatehouse at Someries testify.¹³ He was also clever, running rings round ¹² ‘John Hardyng in search of the Grail’, Arturus Rex, Acta Conventus Lovaniensis, II, ed. W. Van Hoecke, G. Tournoy, and W. Verbeke (Leuven, 1991), 419–29, at 423. ¹³ N. Pevsner, The Buildings of England. Bedfordshire and the County of Huntingdon and Peterborough (Harmondsworth, 1968), 114, illus. 56; J. A. Wight, Brick Building in England (London, 1972), 227: ‘Elaborate work survives here: corbelling over entrance, squinch and stair to right. Other moulded bricks used for window and door arches and window slits of range. Someries’ best feature is spiral stair at rear, though this ruinous. Wholly brick, with handrail deeply inset, steps resting on vaulting bricks that radiate sideways from circular newel. Vault so beautifully laid it looks carved out of butter!’

232

Colin Richmond

the tyro diplomat Commynes at Calais in 1470.¹⁴ Alas, clever men with taste often make fools of themselves. What does count, it seems to me, is Wenlock’s commitment to Richard, earl of Warwick. While not in the least a sycophantic follower of the Kingmaker, he appears to have been devoted to him. How to account for this? An answer will require some discussion of the role of the earl of Warwick in the Wars of the Roses. If Wenlock believed in him, there must have been something more to the earl than most historians have given him credit for. There are at least two divergent opinions of the earl of Warwick. Miss Holland writes:¹⁵ Warwick seems to have been a prudent man, primarily a planner, whereas his [royal] cousins’ instinct to act in the face of an opportunity or threat and their continuing preference for confrontation rather than compromise ensured that insecurity would dog them throughout their lives . . . a man who was himself credited with an Ulysses-like astuteness seems to have been unable or unwilling to recognise guile in his cousins. This blindness, added to his natural caution and a jealous regard for his good reputation, meant that he could not only be duped, but found it hard to recover thereafter. It was a weakness which was to prove fatal to him in the longer term.

On the other hand, Professor Pollard has concluded: ‘In the end Warwick was a rogue elephant, a danger not only to Edward IV, but also to his whole class.’¹⁶ I do not think these two views are compatible. They are, however, thought provoking. Warwick as a danger to his whole class is particularly provocative of thought. Was he a greater danger than Richard, duke of York? Was he dangerous because he had popular support but no dynastic claim? Alas, he was not Henry Bolingbroke. There is no doubt at all about the level of support for him among the nobility and greater gentry: Wenlock was not the only Warwickian among them. Nor can one question his wider popularity. Leaving aside the plaudits he received for his chauvinistic exploits at sea during the second half of the 1450s, when he alone appeared to be defending the realm and ﬂying the ﬂag, his conduct in the awkward parliament of October 1460, when Richard of York claimed the throne, was regarded by at least one correspondent as a triumph: ‘Wherein my lorde of Warwik be had him soo that is fame is lik to be of great memory.’¹⁷ The notable point about the compromise worked out in that parliament is that it was talked into being. Killing only begets more killing. The appetite for it may run out eventually (or it may stop being proﬁtable), but in 1460 the killing had ¹⁴ Philippe de Commynes. Memoirs: The Reign of Louis XI 1461–83, trans. and ed. M. C. E. Jones (London, 1972), 182–5, 190–2. ¹⁵ P. Holland, ‘The Lincolnshire Rebellion of March 1470’, EHR, 103 (1988), 868–9. ¹⁶ A. J. Pollard, Late Medieval England 1399–1509 (London, 2000), 290. ¹⁷ ‘An unknown secretary writing to John Tiptoft, earl of Worcester, then in Venice’: P. A. Johnson, Duke Richard of York 1411–1460 (Oxford, 1988), 213–4.

Power and Politics during the Wars of the Roses

233

barely begun. Among the early killers had been Warwick himself, the man, as Bruce McFarlane once remarked, with the worst record of all the protagonists of the Wars of the Roses.¹⁸ Yet, he was as ready to talk as to kill. In 1469 he brokered another political compromise, this time with Richard of York’s son, Edward IV, although this time (it has to be admitted) it followed the bloodletting after Edgecote for which he was responsible. It is not so much that political compromise in a time of war has only a small chance of success: most fail, as those of 1460 and 1469 did. It is Warwick’s proclivity for such compromises that is impressive. It was not he who tore up the agreements of 1460 and 1469: Margaret of Anjou bloodily rejected the ﬁrst; Edward IV just as lethally undermined the second. The failure of the ﬁrst was crucial. It led to Wakeﬁeld, where a bloody vengeance was taken by Margaret of Anjou’s forces. There was no going back on that until an even bloodier victory for Edward of York at Towton brought a temporary cessation of hostilities. Warwick the Peacemaker does not quite ring true. But there is a truth of a kind in the title. It is John Tiptoft, earl of Worcester, whom contemporaries believed had the worst record. They called him a butcher. He probably relished the word. The question is: did he butcher for England? I suppose that Tiptoft has exercised the imagination of historians because he was such a literate barbarian. When not impaling his victims he was reading books, even writing them.¹⁹ Here, indeed, if we do not encounter Huizinga’s blood and roses, we have come across blood and books. I am the ﬁrst to admit the fascination. Once again, however, I must defer dealing with this bookish butcher until another occasion. Here, the issue is simply that of his patriotism. How are we to construe his absence from England during the most tumultuous years of civil war? Having gone abroad in January 1458 he was away for close on four years, returning to England at the beginning of September 1461. After pilgrimage to the Holy Land in 1458, he studied civil law at the University of Padua and read with Guarino da Verona at Ferrara. He was also in Rome. There were numerous Englishmen in Italy; Tiptoft was by far the most distinguished of them. It was thought that he brought back with him Italian manners. Italian mannerisms possibly, for he appears to have snubbed the Mayor of London (a mere tradesman) on a grand public occasion deliberately, but his manners seem to have been more Cambridgeshire than Florentine. His upbringing was far more important than a handful of years in Italy. His father, Sir John Tiptoft, was a great man in government circles, a widely travelled diplomat, and a ¹⁸ McFarlane, England in the Fifteenth Century, 244. ¹⁹ He seems to have got the idea of impalement from the practice of the Knights of St John at Rhodes. When he called in at the island on his way back from the Holy Land in 1458 he was told about what had been done to their Turkish captives a few weeks previously: R. J. Mitchell, John Tiptoft (London, 1938), 47.

234

Colin Richmond

reader (and compiler) of English history,²⁰ while his four sisters were notable ﬁfteenth-century bluestockings. It is possible that he left England in 1458 to avoid embarrassment. His father, who had died in 1443, had served the House of Lancaster faithfully throughout his life, and he himself was in considerable debt to Cardinal Beaufort in 1447.²¹ Marriage no doubt eased his ﬁnancial difﬁculties: he owed his ﬁrst wife—Cecily, daughter of Richard Neville, earl of Salisbury, widow of Henry Beauchamp, duke of Warwick, whom he married in 1449—to the patronage of the Nevilles, as he no doubt also owed them the grant of his earldom in the same year. The houses of Lancaster and Neville had been at cross purposes for at least three years by 1458; if their differences had become irreconcilable by that date Worcester may have wished to avoid choosing between them. He cannot have foreseen all that happened thereafter, yet (it has to be admitted) he did not rush home to take up arms once the ﬁghting began in earnest the following year. He was not a coward: see below. Nor was he a trimmer or a turncoat: once he had made his choice for York, he committed himself wholeheartedly to the cause. The Nevilles then took second place, or rather no place at all, Worcester’s commitment being so single-minded; his patriotism, if we may call his devotion to Yorkist government such, was of the kind that takes no prisoners. Cecily Neville died in 1450, perhaps in childbirth, as did his second wife, Elizabeth, widow of Reynold, lord de la Warre, two years later. They had both been in their early twenties. Worcester did not marry again until 1467. His third wife was his third widow, but Elizabeth Hopton, widow of Sir Roger Corbet of Moreton Corbet, Shropshire, with whom he apparently eloped, was possibly more mature than his ﬁrst two wives, although she did not die until 1498, surviving her third husband, Sir William Stanley, who, a few years earlier, had been executed, like her second husband, on Tower Hill. If only she had written her memoirs. If only the earl of Worcester had. I am not being entirely facetious: without records of that type historians of the Wars of the Roses are almost entirely at a loss.²² The records of government are all very well, but on issues that matter they do not tell the truth. In fact, they seek to obscure it. If only, therefore, we had the equivalent of the Watergate Tapes of, say, the discussions behind closed doors at the palace of Westminster in October 1460. The language was probably rough, like that used by Edward of York and the earl of Warwick to their captives at ²⁰ There are lively biographies of Sir John Tiptoft in Roskell, Parliament and Politics, iii. 107–50, and J. S. Roskell, L. Clark, and C. Rawcliffe, The History of Parliament. The House of Commons 1386–1421, 4 vols. (London, 1992), iv. 620–8. I am sure that Norman Scarfe is right about the tomb in Ely cathedral (Cambridgeshire. A Shell Guide, 1983, 138): it is Sir John Tiptoft’s not the earl of Worcester’s. No doubt the son had it put up to honour his father and his father’s two wives sometime in the 1460s. ²¹ J. S. Roskell, ‘Sir John Tiptoft, Commons’ Speaker in 1406’, Parliament and Politics, iii. 107–50, at 149. ²² McFarlane, England in the Fifteenth Century, 231–2.

Power and Politics during the Wars of the Roses

235

Calais the previous January, or that for which William, lord Bonville, had his head cut off in the immediate aftermath of the Second Battle of St Albans.²³ Yet, though the young Tiptoft owed a great deal to exalted patrons that was in the past by 1458. Meanwhile he had witnessed at ﬁrst hand the decline of the House of Lancaster, being Treasurer between 1452 and 1455 and a Keeper of the Sea in 1454. If he was at all patriotic, he is likely to have been favourably inclined towards Richard, duke of York, who was offering ‘reform’ as a political programme, and York’s principal supporter, Richard Neville, earl of Warwick, who was ‘ﬂying the ﬂag’ at Calais and doing all the harm he could at sea to England’s enemies. On his return to England in 1461, with the dust from half a dozen battles having cleared away, Worcester presumably saw his political duty as self-evident: it was to serve York as loyally as his father had served Lancaster. And so he did, being notably abrasive when governing Ireland. There is not a hint that he found his course other than morally straightforward. Worcester’s loyalty to York lost him his head in 1470, when the son of a man he had executed in 1462 got his revenge; the earl of Oxford, in temporary Lancastrian (or Warwickian) triumph sat in judgement on his father’s killer in October 1470 and there was bound to be only one verdict. Off with his head: and with three strokes of the axe in honour of the Trinity please, joked the stoical (quite probably the atheistical) Worcester on the scaffold.²⁴ One has to admire him for that: the manner in which we take leave of life is an indication of how we have lived it, or, as the Russian saying has it, the end crowns the matter.²⁵ Or, as McFarlane said, ‘heroism [in the Wars of the Roses] could only be achieved by those who met death stoically beneath the executioner’s axe.’²⁶ Neither Alice Chaucer nor John, lord Wenlock, were granted the opportunity. The former died in her bed; the latter was cut down leading the Lancastrian centre ²³ Paston Letters and Papers, i. 162; Historical Collections of a Citizen of London in the Fifteenth Century, ed. J. Gairdner, Camden Society, new ser., 17 (London, 1876), 212. ²⁴ I can correct an error at this point. In a recent piece, ‘Patience Pudding’, I had Sir Thomas More making the Worcester joke on the scaffold. I was getting my medieval gallows humour in a twist. In fact, Thomas More cracked two (better) jokes: William Roper’s Life, in E. E. Reynolds (ed.), Lives of Saint Thomas More (London,: Everyman’s Library, 1963), 50. ‘Patience Pudding’ is to be found in ‘Proﬁles of Sanity’, Common Knowledge, 10 (2004), 252–72; the error is at 256. ²⁵ It is moving to read the encomium entered in a Christchurch Canterbury necrology on Tiptoft’s death (BL, Arundel MS 68, f. 45v ): ‘of good and famous memory, a man most learned in all the liberal arts and skilled in the knowledge of letters both sacred and secular’ (I have quoted Miss Mitchell’s translation: John Tiptoft, 77). Another BL manuscript witnesses to another interest of this man of many parts. Harleian MS 69, ff. 20–5 are the rules he drew up for the tournament between the Bastard of Burgundy and Anthony Woodville held at Smithﬁeld in June 1466. They copy those drawn up by that doyen of tournament impresarios, King René of Anjou, but the system of scoring added to them may have been devised by Worcester: F. Cripps Day, The History of the Tournament in England and France (London, 1918), pp. xxvii–xxx. This is not the tournament at which Henry Beaufort, formerly duke of Somerset, wore ‘ a sory hatte of strawe’; that one was held at Westminster in 1462, see, e.g., Historical Collections, ed. Gairdner, 219. ²⁶ McFarlane, England in the Fifteenth Century, 260.

236

Colin Richmond

at Tewkesbury; both, it has to be assumed, made a good job of dying.²⁷ They were not heroic, but they were not deserters either, as Richard, earl of Warwick, seems to have been when cut down in ﬂight from the battleﬁeld of Barnet. Each of them possessed, however, a strong identity; even the earl of Warwick, as his popularity attests, was a powerful personality. What, therefore, are we to conclude from these synopses of character? Not a great deal perhaps. If civil war brought out the worst in most (as almost without exception it does), it provoked in the four persons considered here responses that were more positive than might have been anticipated. In two of the men, Worcester and Wenlock, it produced a vigorous endeavour to ﬁnd answers; in the third, Warwick, it also found a protagonist seeking a solution; he was not up to ﬁnding it, but then in wars that go on for thirty years solutions are very hard to ﬁnd: see further below. Not many of the casualties of the Wars of the Roses made such a good end as did John Tiptoft, earl of Worcester. Although Owen Tudor did, the earl of Wiltshire, caught hiding in a coalmine, did not.²⁸ Others were not given the chance, the earl of Salisbury after the battle of Wakeﬁeld, and those ripped out of sanctuary in the abbey after the Battle of Tewkesbury, for example. First, what of the lords in general? Can one say anything useful about their behaviour during the Wars of the Roses, speciﬁcally in that most trying and topsy-turvy time in 1469–71, when choosing one side or another was forced on the vast majority of them, the vast majority, that is, who were neither too old nor too young to care what was going on, who were so mentally challenged as not to know, or who were such nonentities they were the forgotten men of their time. There were seventy lords during those years. Ten or twelve come into the categories just mentioned. Of the other sixty a few generalizations can be risked. The ﬁrst is obvious. These sixty were just as individualized as any other group of sixty male adults.²⁹ There were inequalities of status, a duke pulling more weight than a baron, even if he was a lightweight duke, as very obviously was Alice Chaucer’s son, John de la Pole, duke of Suffolk; there were inequalities of wealth, impoverished Northern barons, on the one hand, Midland plutocrats like ²⁷ Roskell, ‘John, Lord Wenlock of Someries’, 47 n. 125: ‘I know of no extant contemporary warrant for the late Tudor historian Holinshed’s report that Wenlock was killed by the Duke of Somerset for attempting a ﬁnal treachery to his own side on the battleﬁeld itself. Such an act on Wenlock’s part is not, however, unthinkable.’ By the writer of this chapter it is. ²⁸ For Owen Tudor’s sang-froid on the scaffold see Historical Collections, ed. Gairdner, 211; for the capture of the cowardly James Butler, earl of Wiltshire, ibid., 217–18. He had run away at the very ﬁrst battle of the Wars of the Roses: ibid., 198; The Paston Letters, ed. J. Gairdner, Library Edition, 6 vols. (London, 1904), iii. 28: ‘The Erle of Wyldsshyre, Thorpe, and many other ﬂede, and left her harneys behynde hem cowardly.’ ²⁹ ‘Though at this distance the members of the nobility are apt to look alike they differed widely for all their common stock of traditions, tastes, and prejudices, in native intelligence, practical experience, and ability to learn from their own and other people’s mistakes . . . the diversities of its members must never be forgotten in generalizations about the class’: McFarlane, England in the Fifteenth Century, 232.

Power and Politics during the Wars of the Roses

237

the dukes of Buckingham and Norfolk, on the other; and there were inequalities of mind. The last probably mattered more than we can ever now determine. It is, however, evident that some lords were more important than others, either because they were more cerebral, had (or acquired) an aptitude for administration, were (or became) indispensable diplomats, had enviable management skills, or were so personable a king liked having them close at hand. The same could be said of the greater gentry, or for that matter of churchmen. These two groups do not concern us here. The aristocracy counted for more when the chips were down, as they pre-eminently were in 1469–71, because most of them were able to put more men into the ﬁeld of battle than anyone else, a handful of the greater gentry excepted. Who, then, were the lords who counted in those years? The Bourgchiers (there were ﬁve of them), William, lord Hastings, John, lord Dinham, Edmund Grey, earl of Kent, Thomas Fitzalan, lord Maltravers, Walter Blount, lord Mountjoy, John Mowbray, duke of Norfolk, William Fiennes, lord Say, John Stafford, earl of Wiltshire, and John Tiptoft, earl of Worcester counted for most among the Yorkists. The Lancastrians had no such heavyweights as these. There was the earl of Warwick and eventually there was his brother, John Neville, marquis Montagu; there was John, lord Wenlock; there was also John de Vere, earl of Oxford (the lord the Paston brothers trusted enough to ﬁght for). Beyond this was a handful of old Lancastrian diehards, most of whom returned from exile to die ﬁghting a few short weeks later at Barnet or Tewkesbury. They, however, did not count for much (save as honourable men) because the majority were leaders without retinues: William, viscount Beaumont, Henry Holland, duke of Exeter, Jasper Tudor, earl of Pembroke, Edmund Beaufort, duke of Somerset, Ralph Butler, lord Sudeley, and the Courtenay brothers. The preceeding paragraph became a list of names. Identity sank without trace; it is (anyway) as good as irrecoverable. Only a few individuals stand out among the ruck as personalities: principally Richard, duke of Gloucester, William, Lord Hastings, and John, earl of Worcester. It is just as well: addiction to the cult of personality has resulted in an absurd amount of attention being paid to that most monstrous of ﬁfteenth-century persons, Richard III. Some important names, however, are still missing, Thomas, lord Stanley, John Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury, Anthony Woodville, earl Rivers, for example. The ﬁrst was notorious for being all things to all men so that he was trusted by none; the second appears to have had difﬁculty in knowing what he thought (if he thought anything at all); and the third, like others I have named, will have to be dealt with another time. What might be said overall about the performance of the lords in 1469–71? The second act of the Wars of the Roses was undoubtedly a showdown (the third simply an afterthought). Towton had been a bloodbath but not a conclusive one; there had not been closure. Yorkist government was better than Lancastrian government, which towards the end had been no government at all, but it had

238

Colin Richmond

not been good government as conceived by the more thoughtful part of the political community. The earl of Warwick’s oppositional propaganda of 1469 promised a New Deal, albeit in about as woolly a way as a twenty-ﬁrst-century election manifesto.³⁰ Inevitably in that year there were the discontented (as well as the idealists and the gullible). On the other hand, there were those who had so profoundly committed themselves to the Yorkist regime that should their leader disappear they would be bound to go too. In the end there were more of these ‘ins’ than there were ‘outs’. Among the former were some true believers in the House of York, William, lord Hastings and the Bourgchiers being chief among them. For the rest, it is impossible to tell: in the minds of politicians self-interest becomes confused with the well-being of the community, and they soon are unable to distinguish between the two. Added to that is the mental construct of indispensability. To cap it all, there are old debts to be paid, old scores to be settled, old bills to be presented, old friends not to be forgotten, old enemies to be given a ﬁnal coup de grâce. In sum, we are able to conclude that in 1469–471 there were thirty-six Yorkists and twenty Lancastrians. Signiﬁcantly, a greater proportion of the Yorkist lords were actively engaged. This is unsurprising: the party in power ought to have an edge over that in opposition. The surprise is that it took so long for the Yorkists to come out on top; their poor showing in 1469–71 demonstrates that they had failed to deliver good government during their ﬁrst seven years in power. They got better after 1471. They were, however, lucky to have had a second chance. Had the earl of Warwick been able to produce a dynastic pedigree, no matter how implausible, they might not have had. The third act of the Wars of the Roses is where we come face to face with the issue of morality. Modern war is dehumanizing; medieval warfare was demoralizing. Take Richard III. At York in March 1471 when the burgesses were showing reluctance about admitting Edward IV into the city, Richard said why not kill them and be done with it.³¹ He was still not 20. Edward of Lancaster, born in 1453, was still only 7 when in 1461 he participated in the murder of the plain-speaking Lord Bonville after the Second Battle of St Albans.³² Is it any wonder that he turned into a bloodthirsty adolescent? It would, therefore, be gruesomely appropriate if Richard of Gloucester did kill Edward in the carnage after Tewkesbury: one erstwhile boy soldier dispatching another. There is no doubt that Richard was capable of killing in cold blood. He was not the only one, but, having grown up in a killing war (as had Edward of Lancaster), he is a perfect example of the well-authenticated phenomenon of the way in which violence engenders its own logic; once that has happened, most of the solutions ³⁰ John Vale’s Book, ed. Kekewich, 212–15. ³¹ M. K. Jones, ‘Richard III as a Soldier’, in J. Gillingham (ed.), Richard III: A Medieval Kingship, (London, 1993), 109. ³² For Edward as Lord Bonville’s ‘judge’ see Historical Collections, ed. Gairdner, 212.

Power and Politics during the Wars of the Roses

239

the men of violence can make out in the heat and the dust are violent ones. In September 1471 Richard, for example, ‘solved’ the Fauconberg ‘problem’ by chopping off his head. Richard had also been personally involved in a similar ‘solution’ at the Tower of London one night in May some months earlier, when Henry VI had been (as we might say) ‘put down’.³³ If it was hoped that the problem of Lancaster had been solved, they were fond hopes. Lancaster sprang to life again barely a dozen years later in the unlikely guise of Henry Tudor. Are the violently killed ever truly dead? Richard at Bosworth was a haunted ﬁgure. He not only got the ghosts he deserved, he also was struck down by the nemesis those who live by the axe are bound (in the logic of violence) to encounter. It has been said that extreme violence makes people forget who they are.³⁴ Could that be said of Richard of Gloucester? Did he lose his identity as well as his morality? Richard, none the less, did not start the war. Nor did he participate in the ﬁrst executions. This is where Richard, earl of Warwick’s bad record comes in. While it might be said that the ﬁrst break with responsible political behaviour occurred in 1447, when a jittery government arrested Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, the real rupture with civilized values came in 1460 after the war had begun, as such ruptures usually do.³⁵ In June the earl of Warwick executed Sir Osbert Mountford at Rysbank in the Calais Pale. It was not quite cold-blooded murder, because Mountford was in arms against him, but it was near enough: Mountford’s force, gathered at Sandwich in order to relieve Edmund Beaufort, duke of Somerset in Guînes, had not got underway when Warwick’s raid on the English port attacked and captured its commander. Moreover, it was the army of the government; it was Warwick who was the rebel. Also, Warwick had a choice. Having decisively beaten off Edmund Beaufort, duke of Somerset and Andrew Trollope at Newnham Bridge in April 1460, and being set to invade the defenceless mainland of England, why could he not have imprisoned the discomﬁted Mountford in the castle where he was beheaded?³⁶ In July there was more show of legality, when the government defenders of the Tower were tried and executed after its capture: Lancastrian heads replaced Yorkist ones on London Bridge. In December the Battle of Wakeﬁeld was fought with ferocity and after their defeat no mercy was shown to the captured Yorkists. 1460 was ³³ According to the writer of Warkworth’s Chronicle: see C. L. Scoﬁeld, The Life and Reign of Edward IV, 2 vols. (London, 1923), i. 594. ³⁴ V. Tishkov, Chechnya: Life in a War-torn Society (Berkeley, Calif., 2004), 148. ³⁵ Ibid., 231. ³⁶ Even Miss Scoﬁeld allows herself a comment: ‘This deed seemed a little out of keeping with the desire to avoid bloodshed that Coppini claimed for the Yorkists’ (Scoﬁeld, Edward IV, i. 76). There is much more than meets the eye here. I feel sure that Warwick’s anger at the desertion of Andrew Trollope at Ludford in the previous year and the active part the deserter was taking in the effort to get Warwick out of Calais played its part: Andrew Trollope had married Sir Osbert Mountford’s sister. Why had he deserted Warwick? Both Mountford and Trollope were residents of Calais in the 1450s, Trollope being active at sea on his own account and with the earl. What had happened to sour relations? Here were two men who knew Warwick well, probably too well: they did not believe he was England’s saviour.

240

Colin Richmond

undeniably the year when hostility became a habit of mind; when antipathies became imperatives of violence; when war became a dramatic form of life.³⁷ The cataclysm of Towton was not far off. Why did the Wars of the Roses come to an end? I am not sure that this is a question asked sufﬁciently often. Widespread moral repugnance for the childkiller Richard might explain his defeat at Bosworth; he was left, as we might say for dead. It does not explain the end of close on forty years of intermittent warfare, Yorkism spluttering to an end at Blackheath only in 1497. Yet, Richard had probably dealt it a deathly blow: during his reign so many of the best Yorkist managers defected to Henry Tudor that he had been left with an inexperienced, untalented, and ill-suited group of ofﬁcers to run the country. Conversely, after victory at Bosworth Henry, an utter novice in the craft of governing, was advised by men almost as skilled in the arts of government as those whom Henry V had gathered round him. They were, as DeLloyd Guth has reminded us, civil servants: civil servants to bring closure to civil strife.³⁸ It is one of the odder aspects of the Wars of the Roses that they occurred in what Gerald Harriss has called a ‘demilitarized society’: ‘the transformation of knighthood into civil and political rule reﬂected the priorities of a demilitarized society’, he has recently written.³⁹ That being the case, a majority of the noble and gentle protagonists of the Wars are likely to have become engaged against their deeper inclinations. Thus, as the Yorkist reconstruction of civil society took off after 1471, it became unstoppable, Richard’s reopening of conﬂict being the last aberrant interlude in the inexorable advance of the civil state. The Battle of Bosworth, after all, was fought by few Englishmen, Henry Tudor’s victory being the achievement of his French and Scottish mercenaries.⁴⁰ Such a view has important consequences for our theme. Both morality and identity might the more easily have been engulfed by war, if war was no longer what it had been to the English upper class: a way of life. It also made demoralization easier, brutalization more a matter of self-despair, even of self-loathing, when that class found itself at war with itself. A few of those who fought in the Wars of the Roses found an identity; a further handful lost their morality. Some others were changed, even if they resisted the changes a culture of killing inexorably imposed on them. A tiny minority tried to make sense of what was going on, Sir John Fortescue in his Governance and George Ashby in his Active Policy of a Prince being two of the more thoughtful among those who did. Even they seem not to have had much idea. But then ³⁷ Tishkov, Chechnya, 128, 131. ³⁸ D. J. Guth, ‘Climbing the Civil-Service Pole during Civil War: Sir Reynold Bray (c. 1440–1503)’, in S. D. Michalove and A. C. Reeves (eds.), Estrangement, Enterprise and Education in Fifteenth-century England (Stroud, 1998), 47–61 ³⁹ G. L. Harriss, Shaping the Nation: England 1360–1461 (Oxford, 2005), 185. ⁴⁰ A. Grant, ‘Foreign Affairs under Richard III’, in Gillingham (ed.), Richard III, 127–30.

Power and Politics during the Wars of the Roses

241

who had? When you are in the thick of a war, especially one in three parts, with intervals between the ﬁrst two parts when the war had confusingly appeared to be over, there is very little chance, if any at all, that it can be understood. A war is like a battle: when you are engaged in it not much of it can be seen let alone grasped, as Tolstoy had Prince Bolkonsky explaining so eloquently in War and Peace. One has only to read the ﬁrst-hand account in ‘Gregory’s Chronicle’ of the Second Battle of St Albans to grasp the truth of that. How its author might have replied had he been asked what the battle was about is anybody’s guess.⁴¹ Indeed, when reading ‘Gregory’s Chronicle’ the thought occurs that, for him, the Wars of the Roses were what we would call soap opera, with a cast of unlikely characters—such as John, lord Wenlock’s strenuous cook, John Bishop, for example—and including dramatic interludes (as we, wishing to concentrate on what we think of as the main narrative, might call them), about the theft of pyxes from London churches, the outrageous treatment of the English at Bruges for the Burgundian marriage in 1468 when tourist rates were the order of the day, and the pope’s ban on wearing long-toed footwear for which God’s own Englishmen cared not a ﬁg, stating that papal excommunication would not hurt a ﬂy. Political comment, let alone analysis or theory, were not this commentator’s forte. How many of his contemporaries saw things the way he did? As well as seeing only bits and pieces, were they not also interested in what serious persons think of as trivia? The Wars of the Roses, however, were neither soap opera nor trivial. In the end, even so, they were less lethal to the body politic than was once thought. The late medieval English polity, as John Gillingham has pointed out on numerous occasions, was a sturdier invention than those of France or Germany. The Wars of the Roses had no lasting impact, unless it was in the mythology the English have created about themselves, a mythology far weaker and far less sustaining than that created by the Welsh about themselves. How ﬁtting, therefore, that it was the victory of a Welshman which gave rise to the founding myth of a dynasty coming to bring peace and light to a nation tearing itself apart in a bloody civil war. A recent acquisition of the Victoria and Albert Museum comprises three ﬁgures from Naworth castle, Cumberland. They are about 4 feet high and of oak. They are dated 1450–70. Naworth castle belonged to the lords Dacre. Ranulph, lord Dacre was a Lancastrian. He was killed at Towton in 1461. His brother and heir, Humphrey, was attainted in the parliament that followed. He was pardoned in 1468. In 1469–71 he supported Edward IV. In the parliament of 1472–3 the attainder was reversed. All four of the Naworth ﬁgures are laughing. They ought, therefore, to have been carved later than 1470: after Humphrey, lord Dacre had switched from the losing to the winning side. A rational explanation is, however, unlikely, for such strange, mirthful ﬁgures seem against all reason. Might their laughter be for us historians? Perish the thought. ⁴¹ (ed.), Historical Collections, ed. Gairdner, 211–14.

17 Public or Plebs: The Changing Meaning of ‘The Commons’, 1381–1549 John Watts

In the concluding paragraph of one of his 1988 Wiles Lectures, Rees Davies observed that ‘structures and attitudes have their own momentum; men’s actions and responses are shaped by them more profoundly than they think’. He was referring speciﬁcally to the impact of learned law and written government on the pattern of English royal domination in the thirteenth-century British Isles: whatever the role of contingency and individual ambition, the ‘intensiﬁcation of lordship’, and the related trend towards outright conquest owed much to the inﬂuence of intellectual and cultural changes.¹ This was a perspective running through many of Rees’s books, lectures, and articles: while he was the last person to ignore the social causes of political behaviour, or to rescue the likes of Edward I or the Marcher lords from responsibility for what they did, he often drew attention to the role of attitudes and assumptions in determining action. An important factor in the making of these mentalities, he noted, was terminology. The language of the lawyers, for example, did much to determine the rationalizing and authoritarian tendency of the thirteenth century: it deﬁned the terms of Welsh submission in ways that quite altered its social and political meaning; and it rewrote the powers of Marcher lords ‘in legal language, as liberties of the March’, thus entrapping those lords in a framework of royal jurisdiction which led almost inexorably to circumscription and control.² ‘Names’, Rees observed in another paper, ‘were central’ to medieval political culture; ‘nothing touches our individual or collective identity more closely than the name or names with which we are associated’.³ These are insights I would like to explore in relation to a somewhat parallel, if later, pattern of conﬂict, in which names and attitudes were centrally implicated. ¹ Davies, Domination, 108 (and also 94, 103–4, 113, 120–1). ² Ibid., 92; ‘Kings, Lords and Liberties in the Welsh March’, TRHS, 5th ser., 29 (1979), 41–61, at 61. ³ ‘Presidential Address: The Peoples of Britain and Ireland, 1100–1400: II Names, Boundaries and Regnal Solidarities’, TRHS, 6th ser., 5 (1995), 1–20, at 3.

The Changing Meaning of ‘The Commons’

243

One of the distinctive features of English history in the period running from the later fourteenth century to the middle sixteenth is the recurrence of mass popular insurrections, in which large groups of ordinary people rose up to present collective grievances to the king. The causes of these insurrections were many and various, but they show marked continuities in both practice and discourse. On three occasions, in 1381, 1450, and 1497, the rebels, or petitioners, marched on London to obtain redress; similar moves were planned, but headed off, in 1536 and perhaps also 1549. In each rising the leaders stressed their loyalty to the king, their concern with the common welfare of the realm, and their representation of common opinion; after 1381 they also enunciated a clear sense of public duty. While the government responded punitively in the aftermath of each insurrection, its initial reactions were typically more muted, even indulgent. In part, this was pragmatism—a reﬂection of the sheer difﬁculty of countering popular revolt when the whole political and military apparatus depended so heavily on the compliance of local people; but it was also a tacit recognition that displays of common dissatisfaction possessed some legitimacy. If remedy was sought by the ‘commons’, or ‘commoners’, or ‘community’, whether of Kent, or Norfolk, or Devon and Cornwall, or England itself, whether they rose for truth, or freedom, or the honour and welfare of the king, or the common weal or the commonwealth, the ruler might feel an obligation to listen. The claim on the part of the participants to be, and to represent, the ‘commons’ will be the central concern of this paper. I shall argue that the full signiﬁcance of this claim has not been widely appreciated; that the changing meanings of ‘common’ terminology have gone unrecognized; and that the consequences of these changes have been under-explored. To the Tudor historians who have done most to investigate this sequence of revolts as a sequence, the term ‘commons’ has only a limited resonance—what else were these lower-class, or ‘common’, people to call themselves?⁴ Michael Bush, who has written a most illuminating essay about revolts of the commons, consequently sees them as essentially conservative attempts to restore the social order: moves on the part of the third estate to induce those who prayed and those who fought to perform their traditional roles of spiritual and physical defence, instead of introducing novelties and oppressing the poor.⁵ Ethan Shagan, in his fertile restoration of a popular dimension to Tudor politics, takes a slightly different view.⁶ His commons have an acknowledged ⁴ See e.g. A. Fletcher and D. MacCulloch (eds.), Tudor Rebellions, 4th edn. (Harlow, 1997): ‘The most important distinction in Tudor society remained that between gentry and commons’ (4); ‘The commons of Tudor England, that vast mass of the people who had no formal political role’ (5). ⁵ M. L. Bush, ‘The Risings of the Commons in England, 1381–1549’, in J. Denton (ed.), Orders and Hierarchies in Late Medieval and Renaissance Europe (Manchester, 1999). Note p. 109: ‘The term [commons] meant commonalty, not community, and designated that level of society below the level of the gentlemen and the clergy’. ⁶ E. H. Shagan, Popular Politics and the English Reformation (Cambridge, 2003). The political identity of the commons is more directly explored in his earlier articles, ‘Protector Somerset and the

244

John Watts

role in the polity; they feel entitled to the government’s attention, and they are able to command that attention at moments of royal weakness such as 1536 and 1549; but, once again, they are a social group, and a humble one at that, not representatives of the whole political community. Shagan notes the sharing of a language of ‘commonwealth’ between the rebels and governments of the 1530s, 1540s, and 1550s, and he makes this a basis for a kind of political dialogue, but he does not explore the longer history of that shared language, so he does not see that it might have changed, or recognize the implications of those changes. Medievalists, on the other hand—especially literary scholars—have taken a considerable interest in ‘common’ terminology and its political resonances, but their attention has been devoted mainly to the later fourteenth century, and not to the ensuing period in which (I shall suggest) the social and political valuation of that language gradually changed, and in many ways deteriorated.⁷ For the ﬁrst point to be emphasized is that the word ‘common’ did not, in the ﬁrst place, mean ‘lower class’, nor indeed did it have any class connotations. ‘Common’ and ‘commons’, as we all know, form part of a cluster of words which, in modern English, include ‘commune’, ‘community’, ‘commonalty’, and ‘commoner’. There seems little doubt that the middle English forms of these words—‘commun’, ‘communes’, ‘cominalte’, and their variants—are straightforward, and initially pretty interchangeable, transliterations of similar clusters of terms in medieval Latin and French—‘communia’, ‘communio’, ‘communa’, ‘communitas’, ‘commun’, ‘commune’, ‘communaut´e’, ‘communaunce’, and so on. As Susan Reynolds has shown, these words were in copious use across Latin Europe from around the twelfth century. They gained both credibility and reproduction from their currency in Ciceronian and Aristotelian discourse and their ready association with the Romano-Canonical learned law that did so much to shape the political and administrative vocabulary of high medieval political regimes.⁸ Although shades of distinction could sometimes develop 1549 Rebellions: New Sources and New Perspectives’, EHR, 114 (1999), 34–63 and ‘Popularity and the 1549 Rebellions Revisited’, EHR, 115 (2000), 121–33. ⁷ The work of Susan Reynolds, cited in the next two notes, is fundamental, and ranges more broadly in time, but for examples focusing on the later fourteenth century see A. Middleton, ‘The Idea of Public Poetry in the Reign of Richard II’, Speculum, 53 (1978), 94–114; R. H. Hilton, Bond Men Made Free (London, 1973), 176–7; P. Strohm, Hochon’s Arrow (Princeton, NJ, 1992), 34–42; S. Justice, Writing and Rebellion. England in 1381 (Berkeley, Calif., 1994), 172 and n. 114; E. Steiner, ‘Commonalty and Literary Form in the 1370s and 1380s’, New Medieval Literatures, 6 (2003), 199–221. An exception, dealing with a later period, is David Starkey’s suggestive essay, ‘Which Age of Reform?’, in C. Coleman and D. Starkey (eds.), Revolution Reassessed (Oxford, 1986), 13–27, esp. 19 ff. ⁸ S. Reynolds, An Introduction to the History of Medieval English Towns (Oxford, 1977), 103–8, and Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe, 900–1300, 2nd edn. (Oxford, 1997), 135–6, 170–83, 271, 286, 309; J. H. Burns (ed.), The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought, (Cambridge, 1988), 521–7; B. Tierney, Religion, Law and the Growth of Constitutional Thought, 1150–1650 (Cambridge, 1982), 13 ff.; G. Post, Studies in Medieval Legal Thought (Princeton, NJ, 1964), 29.

The Changing Meaning of ‘The Commons’

245

between a relatively charged word like ‘commune’ and a relatively bland one like ‘community’, these words all shared essentially the same point of reference, a group of people acting as, and thus for, a collectivity. It was in an urban context that these terms received their ﬁrst and most extensive development, and they seem to have remained central to the discussion of urban government and to the legitimation of urban regimes throughout the later middle ages.⁹ Since these urban origins exerted both a formative and a lasting inﬂuence over the meanings attached to the ‘commons’, it makes sense to preface the discussion of popular revolts with a look at the political culture of medieval towns. However hierarchical were English towns in practice, and however readily those hierarchies were recognized in contemporary description, two things are clear: ﬁrst, that each town remained conceptually and discursively a community, whose membership could thus be described as the community, commune, or commons; and, second, that these three terms carried with them no inherent implication of lower status or class. These points have been partly obscured by the historiography, where a reasonable preoccupation with class struggle and a more problematic convention of translating ‘communitas’ or ‘cominalte’ as ‘commonalty’ instead of ‘community’ have combined to make instances of common identity or common action appear as demotic, rather than collective.¹⁰ But when we look at some examples of urban uses of ‘common’-type language in the high and late middle ages, it is clear that the group referred to is the political whole, not the lower-class mass. In the formal records of town government, for instance, there are many phrases such as ‘maior, ballivi et communitas’, or ‘per communitatem eligantur’, where ‘communitas’ clearly means the town as a body, and typically, no doubt, its enfranchised and more important citizens.¹¹ In 1283, for example, it was the ‘communitas’ of Bristol that petitioned the king for the right to collect the borough farm, while ‘communitas’ was also the word most commonly used by the Chancery to describe the corporations created in royal charters.¹² In the vernacular, ‘communitas’ was rendered variously—formulas such as ‘the mayer and the comynes of Exceter’ or ‘the mair, baillyffs and comons of our towne of Bristowe’ are widespread, but it is also easy enough to ﬁnd references to ‘cominalte’ and its variants.¹³ These documentary usages ⁹ Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communities, 183, 220–1; ead, ‘Medieval Urban History and the History of Political Thought’, Urban History Yearbook (1982), 14–23; S. H. Rigby, ‘Urban ‘‘Oligarchy’’ in Late Medieval England’, in J. A. F. Thomson (ed.), Towns and Townspeople in the Fifteenth Century (Gloucester, 1988), 63–7. ¹⁰ For a critique see Reynolds, Towns, 136. For an example of this practice see Rigby, ‘Urban ‘‘Oligarchy’’ ’, 66. ¹¹ Reynolds, Towns, 136. For the tendency of communities to be represented by their most important members see e.g. Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communities, pp. li–lii, 251; A. Black, Political thought in Europe, 1250–1450 (Cambridge, 1992), 14–15, 18–19. ¹² Reynolds, Towns, 110, 114. ¹³ Middle English Dictionary, ii(1), ed. H. Kurath and S. M. Kuhn (Ann Arbor, 1959), 445 (MED hereafter). For ‘cominalte’ see Rigby, ‘Urban ‘‘Oligarchy’’ ’, 66 and The Coventry Leet Book,

246

John Watts

were reﬂected in more social language, too. For example, a proclamation of 1384 allowed ‘alle . . . vitaillers foreins [to] come and selle hire forseid ﬁssh and vitailles to the comunes of [London], to lordes, and to alle other’ (this sequence of identiﬁcations indicates that ‘comunes’ must mean the citizens generally); meanwhile, in 1448, John Shillingford, mayor of Exeter, rejected an arbitration proposed by the local bishop ‘for thogh me thoght that hit were a mene resonable . . . the mater toucheth a grete cominalte as well as me’.¹⁴ The ‘community/commonalty’, the ‘commune’, and the ‘commons’ were thus the collectivity of the city, acting in unison or representatively; it was a group that might include members of the lower orders but, in practice, it might equally be restricted to those ‘good’ or ‘better’ men who spoke on behalf of everyone else.¹⁵ It was certainly not unusual for commentators to consider the social make-up of towns, but it is striking that, until the end of our period, they make little use of the terminology of ‘commons’ to help them do so. Reynolds assembles a number of status terms used in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries—‘magni’ and ‘magnati’ for the great; ‘mediocres’, ‘secundarii’, ‘medius populus’, for those in the middle; ‘minores’, ‘plebs’, ‘minutus populus’, or ‘vulgus’ for the lower classes.¹⁶ In a fascinating example from 1265 Alderman Arnold ﬁtz Thedmar of London is found complaining that excessive consultation of the city’s ‘populus’ in the folkmoot had led these humbler types to get above themselves: in order to secure themselves ﬁrst voice in London’s affairs, they began calling themselves ‘the commune [communa] of the city’.¹⁷ ‘Calling themselves the commune’ is a usage we shall return to shortly, but the point to note is that ‘commune’ here was clearly a term of political legitimacy, not a description of social status. When, at around the same time, an Oxford chronicler wanted to describe the actions of certain humble men involved in disturbances, he referred to them as ‘lesser burgesses’, or ‘burgesses of the lesser commune’: there was clearly nothing socially demeaning about being a burgess, or a member of the ‘commune’.¹⁸ At the same time, it does seem that ‘commons’ could be distinguished from ofﬁcers—not, says Reynolds, hierarchically, but simply in terms of being ordinary members of the city at any given time. This usage is shown in the tendency for towns to have ofﬁcers elected by ‘communiarii’—‘commoners’—as stipulated ed. M. D. Harris, EETS orig. ser., 134, 135, 138, 146 (London, 1907–13), 263, 265, where ‘all the cominalte’ clearly means those who were not the mayor and his ‘brethren’, i.e., his councillors. ¹⁴ MED, ii(1). 445, 436; Rigby, ‘Urban ‘‘Oligarchy’’ ’, 65. See also Coventry Leet Book, ed. Harris, 555, for a 1494 reference to ‘all Citeez and Cominalteez’, and Paul R. Cavill, ‘Henry VII and Parliament’, unpublished D.Phil. thesis, Oxford, 2005, 197, for a late ﬁfteenth-century warning to the corporation of Wells not to act ‘withoute licence of the hole body of the Comonalte of this Cite’. ¹⁵ e.g., Reynolds, Towns, 123. ¹⁶ Ibid., 134–5. ¹⁷ Ibid., 131. ¹⁸ Ibid., 133.

The Changing Meaning of ‘The Commons’

247

for London in 1319.¹⁹ These ‘commons’, or ‘commoners’, were not lower people: like Aristotle’s citizens, they were simply taking turns at ruling and being ruled (indeed, Thomas Usk made reference to ‘other suche worthy persones as aldermen, and comuners’ in his 1384 Appeal against John of Northampton, while in 1469 the mayor of Coventry was aiming to distinguish a group within the ‘commons’ when he wrote about the breaking of the Prior’s gardens by ‘the [i.e. those] comyns of this Cite, that were sympull persons’—‘no men off grett reputacion was wyllyng to that brekyng’, he explained).²⁰ In 1475, meanwhile, the ‘pore commonalte’ of York were pretty clearly a faction, protesting at the way the ofﬁcers were ruling the city. They reminded the city’s mayor, aldermen, and councillors that all of them—both the ofﬁcers and the rest—were ‘one bodye corporate . . . all inlike prevaliged of the commonalte which has borne none ofﬁce in the cite’, that is, given authority by those burgesses who had not been ofﬁcers, but also, inferentially, by those who had (and whose capacity to authorize needed less emphasis).²¹ It is true that there was a general tendency for ofﬁce to circulate within certain sub-groups of the commune, and those subgroups were characteristically the richest—so it is possible that those identiﬁed as the ‘commons’ of later medieval towns could be a less prestigious group, especially once formal media, such as common councils, were created for their representation in the later fourteenth and ﬁfteenth centuries.²² It is certainly not hard to ﬁnd instances in which ‘the commons’ or ‘common people’ are clearly lower class—Usk’s Appeal furnishes one, and accounts of the York disturbances of 1380 furnish others.²³ Even so, the readiness of leading townsmen to act as ‘commons’ in the York disturbances and the relative ease with which Usk’s vulgar opponents could act in the London common council suggest that, at least in an urban context, ‘the commons’ continued to be a political grouping to ¹⁹ Ibid., 136. Note also J. I. Kermode, ‘Obvious observations on the formation of oligarchies in late medieval English towns’, in Thomson (ed.), Towns and Townspeople, 89: ‘the commonalty, i.e. the non-ofﬁce-holding burgesses’. ²⁰ R. W. Chambers, A Book of London English, 1384–1425 (Oxford, 1931), 23; Coventry Leet Book, ed. Harris, 350. ²¹ York Memorandum Book, Part II (1388–1493), ed. M. Sellers, Surtees Society, 125 (Durham, 1915), 246; cf also Coventry Leet Book, ed. Harris, 601 (1501), where ‘comieners’ are clearly people ‘that have not be in ofﬁces of wardeyn and chamberleyn’, and new ones should be elected to their supervisory panel ‘as often as eny of the seid Comieners be called into ofﬁce, or happe to decesse or otherwyse be removed’. ²² But see J. Tait, The Medieval English Borough (Manchester, 1936), 303–4 for the part played by potentiores and discretiores in the establishment of these common councils. The rising status of London common councilmen in the ﬁfteenth century is noted by S. L. Thrupp, The Merchant Class of Medieval London (Chicago, 1948), 82. ²³ Chambers, London English, 24 (when the worthy and wisest had broken with him, John of Northampton ‘drogh to hem the comun poeple’); C. D. Liddy, ‘Urban Conﬂict in Late Fourteenth-century England: The Case of York in 1380–81’, EHR, 118 (2003), 28, 29–30; Steiner, ‘Commonalty and literary form’, 210.

248

John Watts

which the great as well as the small might belong without shame.²⁴ It is not until the early sixteenth century that we begin to ﬁnd urban commentators taking the line of the recorder of Nottingham in 1512. His pithy observation—‘if you suffer the commons to rule, and follow their appetite and desire, farewell all good order’—seems to be part and parcel of a new and different linguistic matrix.²⁵ The development of urban communes and their associated language helped to encourage similar developments in the politics of the realm. By the early thirteenth century England itself could be presented as a ‘commune’, and Magna Carta envisaged it acting like one if the king should renege on what he had granted.²⁶ In 1258 the ‘communitas regni’, or ‘commun/commune d’Engleterre’, or ‘de la terre’ was invited to elect a council of ﬁfteen to represent itself in discussions for the reform of the realm.²⁷ At this stage, the ‘community’ or ‘commune’ was, in practice, constituted by magnates, but we have already seen how the canvassing of the idea in the tumultuous politics of the late 1250s and 1260s encouraged the assertions of lesser groups: a ‘communitas bachelerie Anglie’ marched under the Lord Edward to elicit reforms suitable for the lesser landowners; knights and burgesses came to represent the ‘commune’ in the assemblies of Simon de Montfort; Arnold ﬁtz Thedmar, our London alderman, tells us that ‘almost all the commune of the middling people of the realm of England’ rejected the French king’s attempted settlement in 1264; and if the peasants of Peatling Magna did not actually call themselves the ‘commune’ in 1265, they and other humble men may have sworn oaths to be part of it in 1258 and they clearly identiﬁed with its aims.²⁸ With the development of parliament over the next century or so, communitarian ideas were greatly strengthened. It became axiomatic that the king’s government existed to provide for the common proﬁt, common welfare, or (in the ﬁfteenth-century vernacular) ‘common weal’ of the realm; ‘common counsel’ was required for the granting of taxation and was expected in all the other great affairs of the realm. While the king and lords clothed themselves in representative garb, the former as head of the body politic and wearer of the crown in which all the realm was symbolized, the latter (by the ﬁfteenth century, at least) as ‘tutors’, or guardians, of the ²⁴ Liddy, ‘Urban conﬂict’, 28, notes the leadership of the commons in 1380–1 by high-status men and generally relates the factional divisions among the great that lay behind the communal demonstrations of that year. Cavill, ‘Henry VII and Parliament’, 208, records a 1489 reference to ‘the commonaltie of oure said towne, as well pore as riche’. ²⁵ Quoted by Rigby, ‘Urban ‘‘Oligarchy’’ ’, 77. For the rise of oligarchy (and what might be called technocracy) in towns from the later ﬁfteenth century see also P. Clark and P. Slack (eds.), English Towns in Transition, 1500–1700 (Oxford, 1976), ch. 6, and D. M. Palliser (ed.), Cambridge Urban History I, 600–1540, (Cambridge, 2000), ch. 13, esp. 309–12. ²⁶ J. C. Holt, Magna Carta, 2nd edn. (Cambridge, 1992), 56–7. ²⁷ For these quotations see Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communities, 220–1, 271. ²⁸ Ibid., 271–2, 308–9; D. A. Carpenter, ‘English Peasants in Politics, 1258–1267’, P&P, 136 (1992), 3–42.

The Changing Meaning of ‘The Commons’

249

realm, it was, of course, the elected representatives of shires and boroughs in parliament—knights, merchants and the like—who came most consistently and formally to speak for the communities, but also the community, or commons, of the realm.²⁹ As the early fourteenth century Modus Tenendi Parliamentum pointed out, the knights and burgesses represented ‘the whole community of England’ (representant totam communitatem), and so it was that by the middle of that century, they came to be called ‘the commons’, in parliamentary usage, in their own petitions and in the texts of such well-informed contemporaries as the Anonimalle chronicler.³⁰ But notwithstanding this appropriation, the scope of the national community remained implicitly universal and, just as in towns, the act of representing the community proved open to usurpation from below. All this, then, provides the context for the adoption by the rebels of 1381 of the name ‘commons’—‘trew communes’ in one example, ‘loyal/lawful commons of England [loials comunes Dengleterre]’ in another—and it helps to explain why the usage of the term by a group of craftsmen and labourers was both innovative and highly charged.³¹ The chronicler Thomas Walsingham remarked that, during the revolt, the villeins of St Albans gloried in this name and considered none more honourable than the name of the ‘communitas’, and it is striking that many contemporary commentators on the popular convulsions of the 1370s and 1380s, seem to have avoided the name ‘commons’ when referring to the participants, talking instead of ‘rustics’, ‘servants’, ‘labourers’, ‘villeins’, ‘mobs’, and so on.³² Others responded differently, but in ways that showed a sharp awareness of what was happening. Susan Crane has noted, for example, how the C Text of Piers Plowman abandons some of the B-Text’s more suggestive lines on the ‘communes’, in the wake of the rebels’ exploitation of the term.³³ Meanwhile, a number of parliamentary references from the early 1380s seem deliberately to accept the rebels’ identiﬁcation as ‘commons’ ²⁹ For all this see generally G. L. Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance in England to 1369 (Oxford, 1975) and R. G. Davies and J. H. Denton, The English Parliament in the Middle Ages (Manchester, 1981). ³⁰ N. Pronay and J. Taylor, Parliamentary Texts of the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 1980), 77; J. Taylor, English Historical Literature in the Fourteenth Century (Oxford, 1987), app. III. See also Post, Studies in Legal Thought, 328, 409. ³¹ R. B. Dobson, The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 (London, 1970), 127, 130. ³² The St Albans Chronicle, ed. and trans. J. Taylor et al., (Oxford, 2003), i. 452–3. For the general avoidance of the term by Walsingham and other writers see Strohm, Hochon’s Arrow, 34–42 and J. Watts, ‘The Pressure of the Public on Later Medieval Politics’, in L. Clark and C. Carpenter (eds.), The Fifteenth Century IV (Woodbridge, 2004), 160–1. Walsingham makes several references to ‘rustics and commons’, and it is possible that he means by this peasants and townsmen. The villeins of St Albans had claimed to be burgesses in 1327, so it is possible that there was a local, and urban, context for their use of the term ‘commons’ in 1381: A. Dunn, The Great Rising of 1381 (Stroud, 2002), 33. Note that some chroniclers were content to call the rebels ‘commons’, notably The Anonimalle Chronicle, 1333–1381, ed. V. H. Galbraith (Manchester, 1927), 133 ff. and Knighton’s Chronicle, 1337–1396, ed. G. H. Martin (Oxford, 1995), 208 ff. ³³ S. Crane, ‘The Writing Lesson of 1381’, in B. Hanawalt (ed.), Chaucer’s England: Literature in Historical Context, (Minneapolis, 1992), 201–23, 211–13.

250

John Watts

(sometimes in a qualiﬁed way, by calling them the ‘menues communes’ or ‘povre commune’). On occasion, this was apparently intended to vindicate and strengthen demands for reform, as in a number of critical petitions and speeches from 1381–2; sometimes, as in the chancellor’s speech in October 1383, it seems to have been intended to put down MPs by associating their protests with those of the unstable masses and underlining the collective obligation to produce taxation.³⁴ These manœuvres help us to understand why the rebels’ choice of ‘commons’ was so signiﬁcant: it emphatically made them part of the communitas regni whose interests were recognized to be the purpose of all government, and whose capacity to speak for itself was such a cherished feature of English political arrangements. Labourers, villeins, and craftsmen were insisting that they, too, were part of political society, recently deﬁned by Jean-Philippe Genet as those sharing in public power—and they meant this in a full sense: where the MPs of 1376 had sought the impeachment of the men around the king and recited other grievances, the rebels of 1381 murdered the king’s traitors and petitioned him for other kinds of justice.³⁵ Alarmed as contemporaries were by these actions, they understood them and they found some legitimacy in them. The cries of the rebels might be presented as animalistic howls in the works of Walsingham and the poet John Gower, but both of them knew that vox populi was vox Dei, and Gower and other writers, such as the early ﬁfteenth-century Digby poet, also made links between the vox plebis and a more universal ‘comon voys’ that resonated through the public poetry of the decades around 1400.³⁶ In 1381, therefore, to be ‘common’ was to be part of the communitas regni, to speak and act for the community of the realm in a manner parallel to the magnates of 1215, the knights of 1259, and the MPs of the fourteenth century. The complex of assertions made in 1381 was also present in the rising of Jack Cade in 1450, and was received in a partly similar way.³⁷ This time, the claim of Cade and his fellows to represent the commons was accepted more or less without comment. In part, this may have been because of the emergence of a yeoman status from which many of the leading rebels were drawn: people of this class were the natural leaders of sub-gentry rural society, and, as it has recently been argued that Cade’s rebellion was a rising of the local militia, it seems likely that its participants enjoyed a measure of public authority as well as

³⁴ Rot. Parl., iii. 99–101, 139, 150. I am grateful to Chris Fletcher for some of these references. ³⁵ J.-P. Genet, La Gen`ese de l’´etat moderne. Culture et soci´et´e politique en Angleterre (Paris, 2003), 102–6. See also C. Dyer, ‘The Political Life of the Fifteenth-century English Village’, in Clark and Carpenter, (eds.), Fifteenth Century IV, 135–58, at 148–9, and Watts, ‘Pressure of the Public’, passim. ³⁶ Ibid., 170 and n. 51. ³⁷ I. M. W. Harvey, Jack Cade’s Rebellion of 1450 (Oxford, 1991); Watts, ‘Pressure of the public’, 159–61.

The Changing Meaning of ‘The Commons’

251

social standing.³⁸ It is also likely, as we shall see, that ‘commons’ had, by now, become a more routine term for the lower orders, although it is interesting to ﬁnd a commentator like Thomas Gascoigne describing the events of 1450 as a rising both of the vulgus and also of the communitas Angliae in Kent and other parts of England.³⁹ Clearly, the ‘commons’ were not simply lower-class people, and the explicit links that Cade and his men made between their status as ‘commons’ and the well-being of the whole community of the realm were widely apprehended. Cade’s men had risen up to rescue the king, they said, and to show him what the traitors around him had done; their concern was with the ‘commune proﬁt’ or ‘comyn wele of the realme of Ingelonde’; they spoke as ‘trew lege menne’ and on behalf of ‘alle the comynealte of Ynglond’ as represented in parliament, and they called on ‘alle the comyns of Inglond’ to help them.⁴⁰ Much as chroniclers protested at the violence and looting that followed the rebellion, they tended to recognize the legitimacy of its early stages: to Gascoigne, for instance, Cade and his fellows were ‘public petitioners for public justice to be done, and demonstrators of their own grievances and those of the realm’, while a London chronicler noted that Cade had acted against his allegiance, but observed that ‘his desires wer good and for the well of the land’.⁴¹ Though he claimed to deplore disorder, Richard of York also took up the commons’ cry: as a Yorkist chronicler put it, stressing the link between the ‘commons’ and the welfare of the ‘community’, ‘the comones of this lande . . . loved the Duk of York, because he loved the communes and preserved the commune profyte of the londe’.⁴² The next few decades were marked by what might almost be seen as a politics of common weal, in which the noble defenders of this valuable entity vindicated their good faith with reference to the attitudes and well-being of the commons, the poor as well as the rich. This was the posture of York, Warwick the Kingmaker, the duke of Clarence, and the MPs of the 1450s, 1460s, and 1470s, but it was also, in certain ways, the position of such royalist ministers as Sir John Fortescue and Bishop John Russell.⁴³ The king was given by God to uphold the common ³⁸ M. Bohna, ‘Armed Force and Civic Legitimacy in Jack Cade’s Revolt, 1450’, EHR, 118 (2003), 563–82. ³⁹ Thomas Gascoigne. Loci e Libro Veritatum, ed. J. E. Thorold Rogers (Oxford, 1881), 139: ‘magna insurrectio facta est in Anglia per vulgus et per communitatem Angliae in Cancia et in aliis Angliae partibus’. ⁴⁰ Harvey, Cade’s Rebellion, 186–91. ⁴¹ Gascoigne, ed. Rogers, 189; Six Town Chronicles of England, ed. R. Flenley (Oxford, 1911), 132. ⁴² An English Chronicle 1377–1461, ed. W. Marx (Woodbridge, 2003), 72. ⁴³ For York see J. Watts, Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship (Cambridge, 1996), ch. 7; for Warwick and Clarence, M. Hicks, Warwick the Kingmaker (Oxford, 1998), ch. 9.3; for Russell, J. Watts, ‘ ‘‘The Policie in Christen Remes’’: Bishop Russell’s Parliamentary Sermons of 1483–84’, in G. W. Bernard and S. J. Gunn (eds.), Authority and Consent in Tudor England, (Aldershot, 2002); for Fortescue, S. Lockwood (eds.), Sir John Fortescue. On the Laws and Governance of England (Cambridge, 1997).

252

John Watts

weal, and the common weal was attested most ﬁnally and completely by the commons. If we jump forward to the risings of 1536, however, we ﬁnd that the situation is subtly different. The rebels invoked a now familiar cocktail: the ‘cominalte’ of Beverley, for example, declared themselves sworn to God, the prince and the commons, against councillors, inventors, and procurers to undo both Church and commons; the bailiff of Kendal asked for two men from the parish of Windermere to come and consult ‘for common wealth’ with the captains and commons of the other northern counties.⁴⁴ However, where earlier ‘common’ rebels had typically ignored or downplayed status distinctions, it seems that those of 1536 were very conscious of their identity as a group distinct from the nobles: one, for example, sending his poor advice ‘to my lorde captayne, baronage and comynaltie at Pomfrete’, while calling for the king to be counselled by ‘the nobylles, baronage and commons for the sayd communwyllthe’.⁴⁵ The ‘commons’ of 1536 seem to have sought the involvement of the local gentry and baronage in order to demonstrate the collective and national aims of their movement; without their participation, the Pilgrimage of Grace could only be a popular demonstration—‘common’, certainly, in the increasingly social weighting of the word, but sectional, classbased, and, by this time, denied the legitimacy attached to action for the commonwealth.⁴⁶ Something of this emerges in the responses of the authorities. In early proclamations against the rebels, the crown studiously avoided the word ‘commons’: it was dispatching an army northwards against ‘traitorous rebels’; it warned against seditious rumours and unlawful assemblies.⁴⁷ This suggests that ‘common’ still had something of its legitimizing connotations—or that it might have done among the lower orders, whom the crown wished to contain. There is also a tendency in royal apologetic to steal the rebels’ terminology: a proclamation announced that these assemblies were ‘hurtful to the commonwealth’, for example, while a tract of Richard Morison’s, ‘in which is showed what ruin and destruction cometh of seditious rebellion’, described the Pilgrims as ‘a huge and riotous army against [the king’s] captains, to the destruction of his laws and commonwealth’.⁴⁸ This ⁴⁴ Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic of the Reign of Henry VIII, ed. J. S. Brewer et al., (London, 1862–1932), xi. no. 645, xii.(1). no. 965. ⁴⁵ Ibid., xi. no. 1244 (504). See also R. W. Hoyle, The Pilgrimage of Grace and the Politics of the 1530s (Oxford, 2001), 425–7. ⁴⁶ Ibid., 445–6 and S. J. Gunn, ‘Peers, Commons and Gentry in the Lincolnshire Revolt of 1536’, P&P, 123 (1989), 64 ff., both consider the desire of the common rebels to enlist the gentry in the revolt. See also Shagan, ‘Popularity and 1549’, 129–31 and Bush, ‘Risings of the commons’, 112–13. ⁴⁷ Tudor Royal Proclamations, I, 1485–1553, ed. P. L. Hughes and J. F. Larkin (New Haven and London, 1964), 243–5. ⁴⁸ Ibid., 245; D. S. Berkowitz, Humanist Scholarship and Public Order. Two Tracts against the Pilgrimage of Grace by Sir Richard Morison (Washington DC, 1984), 88.

The Changing Meaning of ‘The Commons’

253

neatly subverted the rebels’ presentation of themselves as the friends of law and commonwealth, gathered under their own captains against the army of the king’s wicked councillors. Interestingly, the only reference to the ‘commons’ in this tract refers unmistakably to the commons in parliament—MPs—and does so in the context of explaining by whose advice the Dissolution of the Monasteries, the rebels’ main grievance, had been proposed and approved.⁴⁹ In these ways, then, the authorities were saying that the rightful ‘commons’ (and representatives) of England were MPs, and that the risers in the north were simply rebels. But this was not the only line taken by royal agents. It was also felt that it might be safe to acknowledge the ‘common’ status of the rebels, as long as any dangerous political implications of that term were denied. A palliative proclamation of 9 December 1536 offered a pardon to the ‘king’s highness’ subjects and commons’ of the north, accepting the rebels’ nomenclature but reminding them that commons were also subjects.⁵⁰ A second tract of Morison’s offered a ‘remedy against sedition’, but did so by spelling out ‘many things concerning the true and loyal obeisance that commons owe unto their prince and sovereign lord the king’. For reasons which we shall explore later on, it made a lengthy case for government needing to be composed of those best equipped for it, and explained that ‘common wealth’ meant everyone keeping to his degree for the well-being of all; it did not mean wealth for the ‘commons’.⁵¹ These views were to be formative. When the commons rose up again in 1549, they did so much more clearly as a sectional group. Their concerns evoked sympathy, and their calls for ‘common weal’ reminded the regime that the welfare of the lower people was an important part of its obligations, but the government’s proclamations and its letters, printed by Shagan, show that it was in no doubt that the commons were simply the lower orders, and that it felt conﬁdent in reminding the rebels that the king ‘onlye’ was ruler of this ‘commen wealthe’, that he had to consider ‘our whole common wealthe’ (that is, rich as well as poor), and that the ‘seditious persones in Essex’ should remember the teaching of Scripture, which was that they had a natural duty of obedience to the ‘kinge, Governors and Rulers, bearing authoritie in the common wealthe’.⁵² By degrees, then, a signiﬁcant reorientation of political language was taking place in this period. The term ‘commons’, which had meant ‘communitas’, and implied some measure of participation in the common affairs of the polity, was being reﬁned, so that it meant these things only in the specialized circumstances ⁴⁹ Ibid., 93, and see also 103–4, n. 15. ⁵⁰ Tudor Proclamations, ed. Hughes and Larkin, 246–7. For another instance of this coupling, this time from 1553 (‘subjects and communalty’ of Norfolk, explicitly distinguished from the gentlemen of the county), see R. W. Hoyle, ‘Petitioning as Popular Politics in Early Sixteenth-Century England’, Historical Research, 75 (2002), 365–89, at 386. ⁵¹ Berkowitz, Two Tracts by Morison, 109, 111–12, 115–16. ⁵² Shagan, ‘Somerset and 1549’: quotations from 54, 59, 62.

254

John Watts

of parliament. Outside those circumstances, the ‘commons’ were much more obviously and simply the lower orders: while, on occasion, it could be a risky or concessionary act for the government to grant the title of ‘commons’ to any group of popular rebels (and while it seems to have remained signiﬁcant for popular rebels to claim that term), it had also become routine to talk casually of the ‘commons’ and to do so without implying any political interests or claims whatsoever on the part of this group. By these means, then, the lower orders of English society, who had pushed their way into its political community in 1381 and had stayed there, in some manner, for around a century or more, were—at least at a discursive level, and in respect of their collective identiﬁcation—pushed back out again. In the rest of this paper, I should like to explore this shift, and some of its implications. Clearly, it is part of a more general series of adjustments, many of whose social and institutional aspects are already well known. We are familiar with the ways in which the governance of England became more centralized, more organized, and more stable in the decades either side of 1500, and we are increasingly conscious of the formation of more deﬁned, self-conscious, and interfering elites in the villages and towns of later ﬁfteenthcentury England.⁵³ What I want to emphasize here is that changes in languages and representations also had a part to play in placing limitations on the capacity of ordinary people to exploit the structures and discourses of the changing polity. Perhaps the most important of these changes, as I have noted, is that the ‘commons’ seem to have become more and more clearly a lower-class group and less and less principally a political collectivity. Some qualiﬁcations are necessary here. First of all, it does seem that clerical use of the term ‘common people’ (and more occasionally ‘commons’) to mean the third estate goes back to at least the early fourteenth century.⁵⁴ This usage was by no means universal among the clergy: there were preachers, like Thomas Wimbledon, who assiduously distinguished between the ‘comunyte’, which was the city or polity, and the ‘laboreris’; and the practice may also owe something to the division between clergy and laity, with the latter recurrently presented as ‘commons’ and depicted in proletarian form; but there certainly are some fourteenth- and ﬁfteenthcentury instances that blur the boundaries between ‘estates’ discourses and ⁵³ For an introduction to changes in government see S. J. Gunn, Early Tudor Government, 1485–1558 (Basingstoke, 1995). For social and cultural changes see, in particular, C. Dyer, An Age of Transition? Economy and Society in England in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 2005); M. K. McIntosh, Controlling Misbehaviour in England, 1370–1600 (Cambridge, 1997), and the items cited in n. 25, above. ⁵⁴ G. R. Owst, Literature and the Pulpit, 2nd edn. (Oxford, 1961), 366, 369, 370, 550, 553, 554; Middle English Sermons, ed. W. O. Ross, EETS orig. ser., 209 (1940), 238 (‘commynalte’), 248, 254 (‘common peple’); Mirk’s Festial, Part 1, ed. T. Erbe, EETS orig ser., 96 (1905), 27 (‘comyn pepull’), 65 (‘comyns’).

The Changing Meaning of ‘The Commons’

255

communal ones.⁵⁵ It is also clear that, as the vernacular developed, the adjective ‘common’ was readily and widely applied to everyday, shared, and low-status things and people—‘the common trace’, ‘the common tapster’, ‘all manner of men and common women’, for instance—even if it also continued to possess more specialized and valued associations: perhaps these usages gave colour to a term like ‘common people’ and thus strengthened the demotic associations of ‘commons’.⁵⁶ The growth of English also made it easier to translate the more limited and socially abstract political language of the high middle ages in precise ways, so that a term, or indeed concept, like ‘communitas’ or ‘commune’, might be rendered variously as ‘community’, ‘commune’, or ‘commons’ depending on context, and the last of these terms, as a plural noun, may more readily have evoked ordinary people—who were, after all, the major participants in the rebellions we have been considering—rather than the community as a whole. None the less, as we saw above, in other areas of political discourse, ‘commons’ continued to be associated with universal representativeness for much of the ﬁfteenth century, just as Romano-Canonical tradition prescribed. Estates taxonomies were not, in fact, as prominent in secular political discussion as is generally assumed, and when they did appear, they usually avoided the term ‘commons’.⁵⁷ On balance, it seems that ﬁfteenth-century usage was mixed, with ‘commons’ continuing to be used in a universal sense, while also being quite frequently juxtaposed with the nobility and/or clergy (and, increasingly, with gentry and even burgesses).⁵⁸ By the end of the ﬁfteenth century, the use of the term ‘commons’ as one of low social description was clearly growing. John Skelton’s poem on the 1489 rising is quite a good example of this.⁵⁹ The rebels’ own proclamation of that year recited the danger faced by ‘oure suffereyn Lorde the Kynge and the Comowns of Engelond’, and thus preserved the familiar coupling of king and ⁵⁵ Wimbledon’s Sermon ‘Redde rationem villicationis tue’: A Middle English Sermon of the Fourteenth Century, ed. I. K. Knight (Pittsburgh, 1967). Labourers, ‘agricultores’ etc. are used in many other estates-themed sermons discussed in Owst, Literature and the Pulpit, 361–70. ⁵⁶ These examples are taken from the 1460s play ‘Mankind’, in Three Late Medieval Morality Plays, ed. G. A. Lester (London, 1981), ll. 72, 274, 666. Note that the mid-ﬁfteenth-century Anglo-Latin dictionary, Promptorium Parvulorum, ed. A. L. Mayhew, EETS extra ser. 102 (London, 1908), translates ‘comowne pepull’ as ‘vulgus’ (col. 92). Among the translations given for ‘cyttezeyne’, however, is ‘commune’ (col. 84). In the OED, it is striking that the illustrations of low-status meanings for ‘common’ and ‘commons’ are drawn primarily from the period after c.1450. ⁵⁷ Cf MED, ii(1). 445–6; Bush, ‘ Risings of the Commons’, 114 ff.; Shagan, ‘Popularity and 1549’, 129–31. Thrupp, Merchant Class, 295, notes the spread of estates theory in the later ﬁfteenth century. ⁵⁸ There are lots of examples in MED, ii(1). 445–6. Note that Gower’s Confessio Amantis, ed. G. C. Macaulay, EETS, extra ser., 81–2 (London, 1900–1), mingles juxtapositions of commons and lords with less hierarchical and more communitarian couplings of commons and king (e.g. Prologue, ll. 1066–8; Book VII, ll. 2199–200). A similar ambivalence is captured in The Brut, 511, with a reference to ‘the rebelling of commines ageynst ther princes and lordes’ in the 1440s. ⁵⁹ John Skelton. The Complete English Poems, ed. J. Scattergood (Harmondsworth, 1983), 29–35.

256

John Watts

political community.⁶⁰ It seems to have ordered ‘every lorde, knyght, esquyer, gentylman, and yeman’ of the north parts to join the rebels’ army, and warned ‘every ylke [such] comenere’ to keep this, on pain of death. The implication is that this was to be a rising of the commons in the sense of the political community, but Skelton’s response is to present the rising in almost entirely popular terms: the rebels are ‘villein bastardes in furious tene’, confederated ‘of common consent’ to slay their lord; they are ‘comoners . . . stark mad, commons most unkind, uncourteous carls’—lower-class, servant types, described in the lurid terms typically applied to popular rebels from the fourteenth century onwards. Meanwhile, references to the ‘commons’ simply as the political community become rare and rather abstruse by 1500—Stephen Hawes’s poem ‘Passetyme of pleasure’ (c. 1506) offers a couple of examples, Thomas Starkey’s Dialogue between Pole and Lupset (1529–32) another—and (MPs apart) it was only as a politicized collectivity of the lower orders that the term had political resonance.⁶¹ This certainly continued its political utility, albeit in a more restricted form, and it explains its use by vulgar rebels. It may also account for the relative absence of the term from the early Tudor proclamations collected by Hughes and Larkin, which prefer such phrases as ‘subjects’, ‘liege people’, ‘poor and rich’, ‘of whatever degree or condition’, and simply ‘others’ as neutral descriptions of the population and/or its lesser elements.⁶² Even so, the displacement of the older meaning of commons, except in the speciﬁc context of parliament, must have done something to delegitimize popular political participation. Clearly enough, earlier communal activists such as those of 1381 and 1450 had readily been accused of being nothing but a rabble—one chronicler remarked that Cade’s rebels were all ‘as hyghe as pygysfete’, for example—but these allegations had not altogether removed the contemporary sense that the community was speaking through them, and nor, more importantly, had they altered the willingness of respectable politicians to risk confrontation with each other by supporting or responding to popular grievances, so the claim of these earlier commons to represent the whole realm had some credibility.⁶³ It is interesting that, when Skelton found himself wishing to express an old-style common voice, in order to assault the policies of the early 1520s, he did so in the demotic persona of Colin Clout. His recitation of the repertoire of fourteenth- and ﬁfteenth-century common complaint in the so-called anti-Wolsey poems has a self-consciously ⁶⁰ The Paston Letters, ed. J. Gairdner, 6 vols. (London, 1904), vi. 130–1. ⁶¹ The Pastime of Pleasure, by Stephen Hawes, ed. W. E. Mead, EETS, orig. ser. 173, (Oxford, 1928), ll. 237–8, 882; Thomas Starkey. A Dialogue Between Pole and Lupset, ed. T. F. Mayer, Camden Society, 4th ser., 37 (London, 1989), 70 (‘hys regal powar gyven to hym by the consent of the hole commynys’). ⁶² Tudor Proclamations, ed. Hughes and Larkin, passim. ⁶³ The Historical Collections of a Citizen of London, ed. J. D. Gairdner, Camden Society, new ser., 17 (London, 1876), 190.

The Changing Meaning of ‘The Commons’

257

archaic, banausic, and indeed self-ironic air.⁶⁴ Where Gower’s common voice lacks a clear social position, and speaks to its times, Skelton’s is lower class and—to judge by manuscript survival—ignored by the public he was affecting to address.⁶⁵ Not just the terminology, perhaps, but also the liturgy, the political routines, of the commune were becoming d´eclass´e in the sixteenth century. A third development is that the terms ‘commonweal(th)’ and ‘community’ (in contemporary English, typically ‘cominalte’) seem to have retained their high valuation, and became detached, or at least detachable, from the redeﬁned ‘commons’. Morison, in the example mentioned earlier, and his contemporary Sir Thomas Elyot in his 1531 Book Named the Governor, found it necessary to emphasize this detachment with respect to commonwealth, Elyot going so far as to re-frame the term as ‘public weal’, on the grounds that ‘common weal’ would be not res publica but res plebeia, and would imply such monstrous iniquities as wealth purely for the commons, the holding of everything in common, or the equalization of property.⁶⁶ This manœuvre incidentally demonstrates how signally the language of ‘common’ had become associated with the lower classes: if a term of such high political legitimacy as ‘common weal’ required defence from its ‘common’ associations, we are clearly in a very different world from that of 1450. In fact, the tendency was for the commonwealth to become ever more emphatically stratiﬁed in Tudor discussion, and it is striking that Edwardian commonwealth discourse seems to have been at its most egalitarian when it invoked not the secular community but the spiritual one: the collectivity which Hales cited in 1548 to teach people that ‘we all, poor and rich, noble and ignoble, gentleman and husbandman . . . be but members of one body’ was not the body politic, or commonwealth, but the ‘body mystical of Christ’.⁶⁷ The fate of ‘cominalte’, meanwhile, is less clear cut. Starkey pretty consistently uses it in a purely political sense, to mean a political community of universal social range,’ but Edmund Dudley, in his Tree of Commonwealth (1509–10), uses it to mean those who are not the king, the clergy, and the chivalry—a broad group close to the modern term ‘commoners’, and including high-status ﬁgures like merchants and lawyers, though it is assigned a series of roles and responsibilities characteristic of those imposed on the lower orders in Tudor ⁶⁴ See G. Walker, John Skelton and the Politics of the 1520s (Cambridge, 1988), ch. 4. ⁶⁵ Middleton, ‘Idea of Public Poetry’, 95–6, 98–100, sees Gower and his generation as voicing bourgeois interests and attitudes, but through the medium of a universal common voice. For the circulation of Skelton’s works see Walker, Skelton, 119–23. His characterization of the common man was formative, and might be compared to the presentation of Jack Cade as a bumpkin in Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part II, or to the character of ‘People, representing the poore Commontie’ in the 1553 play Respublica, ed. W. W. Greg, EETS, orig. ser. 226 (Oxford, 1952), who cannot remember the name of the republic, and calls it ‘Rice puddingcake’ instead. ⁶⁶ Berkowitz, Two Tracts by Morison, 111–12; Sir Thomas Elyot. The book named The Governor, ed. S. E. Lehmberg (London, 1962), 1–2. ⁶⁷ Perhaps underplayed by Shagan in ‘Somerset and 1549’, 50–1, where the extract is quoted. But cf. his later article, ‘Popularity and the 1549 rebellions revisited’, 130, and also D. MacCulloch, The Tudor Church Militant. Edward VI and the Protestant Reformation (London, 1999), 125–6.

258

John Watts

social criticism.⁶⁸ In these ways, too, the capacity of the commons to assert the common weal and/or to embody a community wider than themselves was weakened. A fourth development had even more signiﬁcant consequences. This was the displacement of the whole repertoire of ‘common’, ‘community’, and even, in a sense, ‘commonweal’ from the more-or-less central place it had occupied in later medieval political discourse. What had made the medieval conception of community so potentially anarchic was, ﬁrst, its socially extensive nature—it was hard to resist the claims of anyone to be part of the community—and, second, its absence of internal hierarchy: other than the shaky convention that the senior et sanior pars should represent the communitas, there was nothing in Romano-Canonical tradition to stratify it; in monarchies, communitarian discourses implied a king and a more or less ﬂat society. Two related discursive shifts challenged these tendencies. On the one hand, Tudor conceptions of society famously emphasize the social hierarchy and the collective importance of its preservation.⁶⁹ Because of the historiographical prominence of the socalled ‘Tripartite Division of Society’, there has been a tendency to imagine a straightforward continuity here from the middle ages to the early modern period, but I think this may be mistaken. Tudor social theory continued to allot distinct functions to speciﬁc classes or estates, but it did so in models which were typically more elaborate and less directly reciprocal than those characteristic of the medieval period. Although by the later ﬁfteenth century social thinking seems to have become increasingly preoccupied with hierarchy, and much as ideas of social responsibility remained available in Tudor England, there is a world of difference between the implicit mutuality of workers, ﬁghters, and prayers, and the obvious stratiﬁcation proclaimed by such ideas as the ‘Great Chain of Being’.⁷⁰ The general inﬂuence exerted over later medieval society by communitarian language and ideas must have had an important part to play in these differences. As we have seen, the ‘commons’ were not, in the ﬁrst place, part of medieval estates theory: they come out of a different language, and one which—as a political language—is much more powerful, because it was more egalitarian. In the emerging estates theory of the Tudors, the ‘commons’ did have a place, but it was at the bottom. Staying in one’s station and doing one’s job became for the ‘common’ person the principal ways of upholding the commonwealth, as treatises like those of Dudley and Starkey, but also parliamentary sermons, such ⁶⁸ T. F. Mayer, Thomas Starkey and the Commonweal. Humanist Politics and Religion in the Reign of Henry VIII (Cambridge, 1989), 116–17; The Tree of Commonwealth, by Edmund Dudley, ed. D. M. Brodie (Cambridge, 1948), 45–6, 55, 58, 67, 87 ff. ⁶⁹ See e.g. Fletcher and MacCulloch (eds.), Tudor Rebellions, ch. 2. ⁷⁰ Ibid., and McIntosh, Controlling Misbehaviour, 190–2. For later medieval social theory see S. H. Rigby, English Society in the Later Middle Ages (Basingstoke, 1995), ch. 9, and ‘England: Literature and Society’, in id. (ed.), A Companion to Britain in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 2003), ch. 25.

The Changing Meaning of ‘The Commons’

259

as those of 1433, 1467–8, and 1483–4 made clear.⁷¹ This is a very different situation from that shaped by doctrines like Quod omnes tangit, in which the role of the community had been to give counsel and consent, and to present its grievances for redress.⁷² It is one in which representation is very much less prominent as a political function: the collective needs of this society cannot be expressed by such amateurs as magnates or popular captains who simply mediate for the community of the realm; instead it is skilled technicians who should counsel the king, and they are more or less an estate themselves in Starkey’s model, as they also had been in Fortescue’s.⁷³ A second, and even more signiﬁcant, discursive shift was the increasing hold of the language and assumptions of classical republicanism on English political discourse. Not only did this replace a primarily vernacular political language with a primarily Latinate one, in which educated users could operate more effectively than their vulgar peers, it also involved certain reconﬁgurations of the polity. While the Ciceronian res publica ensured the common weal and commonwealth a longer life, it was a life in which the right of the better sort to command the rest would be much more clearly established. Cicero’s De Re Publica made the difference between a republic and a democracy very clear, and such Ciceronian writers as Fortescue, Starkey, and Elyot proposed a polity in which authority would belong to wise experts.⁷⁴ And how could the commons beneﬁt from the classical Roman political divisions of prince, consuls, senate, and plebs? In his ﬁrst draft sermon of 1483, Bishop Russell contrived to downgrade both the parliamentary commons and their popular counterparts, making the former tribunes of the plebs, waiting at the door of the senate, while the latter were reduced to waiting a longe —far off.⁷⁵ The tendency of all four of these groups of linguistic changes is to delegitimize popular action and to uncouple that action from the business of the commonwealth. Public business itself is changed, so that its content is no longer the collective hubbub of the universitas, but a mixture, ﬁrst, of hard matters, requiring expert attention, and, second, of sectional grievances, which the government can tackle individually and (in a sense) unpolitically through the application of justice or grace. A kind of political community remains, perhaps, but its constituents are ⁷¹ For these sermons see Rot. Parl., iv. 169, v. 622–3 and Watts, ‘Bishop Russell’s Sermons’, esp. 40. ⁷² Tierney, Growth of Constitutional Thought, 21, 23, 24–5, 70, 75, etc. ⁷³ For Fortescue, see J. L. Watts, ‘ ‘‘A Newe Ffundacion of is Crowne’’: Monarchy in the Age of Henry VII’, in B. J. Thompson (ed.), The Reign of Henry VII (Stamford, 1995), and Lockwood (ed.), Fortescue, 7. For Starkey see Mayer (ed.), Dialogue, 31 ff. and Mayer, Starkey, 129, 133: his estate of rulers/ofﬁcers is to be ﬁlled by a re-educated aristocracy. ⁷⁴ Cicero, De Re Publica, III.43–5 (Cicero’s representation of government as a deliberative activity is also a signiﬁcant revision of earlier notions of rule: I.41 et seq.). See A. Wood, Riot, Rebellion and Popular Politics in Early Modern England (Basingstoke, 2002), ch. 1.1, for a suggestive discussion of the implications of neo-classical socio-political comment. ⁷⁵ Watts, ‘Bishop Russell’s Sermons’, 35, 51–2.

260

John Watts

the denizens of court, council, and parliament: the commons are outside it; like the fourth sort in Sir Thomas Smith’s De Republica Anglorum, they are a class that is governed and has no voice or part in ruling the commonwealth.⁷⁶ This development was certainly challenged—partly by the popular rebels of the Tudor age (though in some respects they accepted their exclusion, and, as Bush notes, gave up on ‘common’ risings after c.1550); partly by such latter-day exponents of the old-style common voice as the poet John Skelton; partly, and in the end most effectively, by the communitarian tendencies of reformed religion; yet it was a clear step away from the mass community that is beginning to emerge as the most striking feature of the later medieval English polity.⁷⁷ Just as law and writing had played their part in the ‘domination and conquest’ of Rees Davies’s British Isles, so the changing languages of the long ﬁfteenth century helped to make a new socio-political order in England.⁷⁸ ⁷⁶ De Republica Anglorum, by Sir Thomas Smith, ed. M. Dewar (Cambridge, 1982), ch. 24. ⁷⁷ Bush, ‘ Risings of the Commons’, 124–5. ⁷⁸ I should like to thank Diarmaid MacCulloch, Paul Cavill, Chris Fletcher, Huw Pryce, Susan Reynolds, and Paul Strohm for their extremely helpful and penetrating comments on earlier drafts of this essay. They are not to be held responsible for any of its shortcomings.

18 A Farewell Speech, Delivered at a Dinner Held in Honour of the Retirement of Rees Davies, Geoffrey Ellis, and Jean Dunbabin, Thursday, 10 June 2004 Rees Davies

Colleagues, It is a pretty poor show for all of you to arrange such a splendid dinner in honour of the three retirees and then to ﬁnd that they are not present—or at least two of them—to say thank you and farewell.¹ Perhaps we ought to have a back-up cabaret in future! But that is too late this time. So I take it upon myself to write a short note of thanks on behalf of the three of us. I should in fact not be doing it at all, since I am the junior colleague in all this. Geoff and Jean have given more to the Faculty and to Oxford than I have. But I was chosen to be the respondent on the principle that all Welshmen are windbags, whereas understatement is Oxford’s speciality. You have been warned—even a short note from me is likely to be as long as one of Fidel Castro’s speeches. May I say how honoured I am to be coupled with Jean and Geoff on this occasion? They represent for me the essence of the Oxford college tutor at his/her best. They range widely; they cherish and sustain students in a way which HEFCE and such bodies have hardly begun to understand. They are the workhorses of the Faculty, chairing meetings, serving on committees, doing the administrative chores (such as chairing examination schools or running the increasingly complex graduate programme) and taking on high (and low) college ofﬁce, and, in Jean’s case, serving as editor of the EHR. I salute them both for all they have done and the spirit in which they did it. Jean and I go back a long way. We were graduate students together and I marvelled at the way she could make head or tail of the medieval commentaries on Aristotle. I have got to know Geoff much more recently, especially as D.G.S., a post which has become steadily more ¹ At the time, both Geoffrey Ellis and Rees himself were too ill to attend. The speech was read out at the dinner on Rees’s behalf.

262

Rees Davies

demanding over the last few years. But I have known him indirectly for longer, since he was one of Bruce McFarlane’s undergraduates. Bruce could be a hard critic of his fellow-dons and especially of professors; but he had real affection for his pupils. It is perhaps inevitable that occasions like these should become autobiographical: it is a convenient escape-route for those whose historical lamps are no longer burning brightly. So let me choose three vignettes to characterize my relationship with Oxford. The ﬁrst comes from the entrance scholarship examination in December 1955. It should be an unhappy memory but it is in fact not so. I was the ﬁrst candidate for an Oxford place from my school in two generations. The whole process was cocooned in grotesquely archaic language and terminology which no one explained in plain English, let alone Welsh. I came from a small rural school of 150 pupils, most of whom were destined for agriculture. I was treated kindly, but I was completely out of my depth intellectually—there were only twenty or so books on History in the School Library, most of them pre-1930. I was even more out of my depth socially. I shared my room with the son of a Wiltshire gentleman farmer who had that easy conﬁdence of the young who have been born to wealth and are particularly conﬁdent when they are utterly wrong—something very common among those born to rule. I was the son of a farm-worker (who by his own effort had become a tenant farmer) and a dairy-maid. What did I know of his world or he of mine? The College knew even less. I was interviewed in the Principal’s room: I think his name was Christie. He was a kindly gentleman, but I was not going to be sitting at his feet. He asked me about fairy tales and myths of my home area; I largely volunteered the information, but realized that it was all lost on him, since the place-names and personal names were all Welsh. I also felt that I was being treated as a member of the Dinka or the Nuer. So Jesus College was not for me. The College took absolutely the right decision. It came as a consolation many years later to learn that Sir John Habakkuk had likewise been turned down! I would have been completely out of my depth socially and academically in Turl Street in 1956. Instead, through a total ﬂuke, I went to UCL. One can be much more anonymous in London than in an Oxford college. And I was fortunate enough to work with a man whom, as a man, I admire more than most, Alfred Cobban, and with a former Oxford don, May McKisack. I grew up academically in UCL, above all by being allowed to ﬁnd my own feet intellectually. Ever since, I have always thought that the duty of a good teacher is to encourage students to read and think for themselves, not to smother them with pre-packaged syllabuses and handouts. At the end of my undergraduate career, I had no idea what I wanted to do. The Head of the Department said that I was ﬁt only for research. At that point May McKisack intervened again, making it clear that I should go to study with K. B. McFarlane, whom she regarded as the only really great scholar of late medieval England. I did not meet him, but Ralph Davis—an ex-UCL man—arranged that I should

A Farewell Speech

263

have a place in Merton (for which I shall be always grateful). Graduates were a rarity in those days and there was no MCR. After about ﬁve weeks in Oxford, I felt I ought to meet my supervisor. It was an awesome occasion. Bruce McFarlane sat in his armchair cradling his cat (I got on the wrong side of him by referring to it as feminine since ‘cat’ is feminine in Welsh!). His greeting was to the point and abrupt: ‘You must be Davies.’ This was followed several times by the single interrogatory ‘Well?’ I went through an account of my reading of Duncumb’s Herefordshire and my attempts to get to grips with PRO Lists and Indexes. When I had quite exhausted my repertoire of discoveries, he said, ‘Is that all?’ I could not dissent. ‘Well,’ he retorted, ‘I see no point in staying then.’ I went back to Ralph Davis to try to discover whether I should leave Oxford forthwith. I did not; and over the years came to regard McFarlane as one of the greatest historians (for all his idiosyncrasies) whom I had the personal privilege to meet. But what would our modern assessment criteria have made of him—either as a supervisor or as a ‘research’ historian? And so to the third vignette. I returned to Oxford through the back door of a professorship, having failed to get in through the front door. Oxford knew—and knows even better now—that it was a gamble. I had already acquired a reputation for turning down chairs. So Keith Thomas (as chairman of the electors) went straight to the point. He generously acquiesced in my request to discuss the issue with my wife, but only overnight. True to his word, he rang at 9.00 the next morning. I have ever since had qualms about leaving Wales; I cannot deny that I have found Oxford’s methods occasionally very puzzling and have been silly enough to say so and even to encourage the Faculty to think critically and constructively about the way it does things. But I have also come to realize more and more that Oxford’s way of doing things is grounded in long tradition—not that long tradition is, assuredly, in itself a reason for opposing or delaying change. Above all, Oxford survives so well because it relies on the goodwill, good sense, and commitment (occasionally over-commitment) of its teachers. It has not worshipped at the altars of the modish, the measurable, and the mediocre. And ﬁnally, and supremely for me, it knows how to cherish academic companionship and care. Its collegiate system may be in need of extensive overhaul; but its broader collegiality is one of its abiding virtues. This is why I wanted to make this declaration, feeble as it is. It is my public acknowledgement of how much I have received at your hands in the Faculty. The sentiments are personal, but I suspect they are not very different from those of Jean and Geoff. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

A Bibliography of the Published Writings of Rees Davies (arranged by year of publication), compiled by Rhidian Grifﬁths 1962 Review: A. R. Wiliam (ed.), Llyfr Iorwerth: A Critical Text of the Venedotian Code of Welsh Mediaeval Law (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1960), History, 47 (1962), 55–6. Review: David Williams, A Short History of Modern Wales, 3rd edn. (London: John Murray, 1961), WHR, 1 (1960–3), 335. 1963 Review: A Bibliography of the History of Wales, 2nd edn. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1962), History, 48 (1963), 129. 1964 ‘Machlud yr Oesoedd Canol’ [The Waning of the Middle Ages], Y Traethodydd, 119 (1964), 34–45. 1965 ‘Marc Bloch’, Taliesin, 11 (1965), 68–75. Review: Dafydd Jenkins (ed.), Llyfr Colan (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1963), History, 50 (1965), 347–8. 1966 ‘Pentreﬁ Diﬂanedig’ [Vanished Villages], Taliesin, 12 (1966), 47–53. ‘The Twilight of Welsh Law, 1284–1536’, History, 51 (1966), 143–64. Review: Angel Flores, Mediaeval Age (London: Dent, 1965), History, 51 (1966), 204–5. Review: D. A. White, Medieval History: A Source Book (Illinois: Dorsey, 1965); J. J. Bagley and P. B. Rowley, A Documentary History of England, Vol. 1: 1066–1540 (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966), History, 51 (1966), 342. ˆ Hanes Cylch Corris a Phlwyf Tal-y-llyn (Dolgellau: Review: J. Arthur Williams, Trem yn Ol: Pwyllgor Cofnodion Cyngor Sir Meirion, 1963), WHR, 3 (1966–7), 94–5.

Bibliography of Published Writings of Rees Davies

265

1967 ‘Marc Bloch’, History, 52 (1967), 265–82. Review: A. J. Roderick (ed.), Wales Through the Ages (Llandybïe: Christopher Davies, 1965), History, 52 (1967), 404–5. 1968 ‘Baronial Accounts, Incomes, and Arrears in the Later Middle Ages’, Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 21 (1968), 211–29. Review: H. D. Emanuel (ed.), The Latin Texts of the Welsh Laws (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1967), History, 53 (1968), 78–9. Review: D. Talbot Rice (ed.), The Dark Ages (London: Thames & Hudson, 1965); Joan Evans (ed.), The Flowering of the Middle Ages (London: Thames & Hudson, 1966), History, 53 (1968), 256–7. Review: F. C. Hingeston (ed.), Royal and Historical Letters of Henry IV . . . Vol. II: 1405–13 (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Ofﬁce, 1965), WHR, 4 (1968–9), 187–9. 1969 ‘Yr Apˆel at Hanes—Vintage ’69’ [The Appeal to History—Vintage ’69], Barn, 83 (1969), 292, 297. ‘Owain Glyn Dwr ˆ and the Welsh Squirearchy’, THSC for 1968 (1969), 150–69. ‘The Survival of the Bloodfeud in Medieval Wales’, History, 54 (1969), 338–57. 1970 ‘The Law of the March’, WHR, 5 (1970), 1–30. [with P. F. Clarke], ‘Historical Series for Students’, History, 55 (1970), 69–75. Review: Frank Price Jones, Crwydro Gorllewin Dinbych (Llandybïe: Christopher Davies, 1969), Barn, 92 (1970), 216–17. 1971 ‘The Social Structure of Medieval Glamorgan: Bro Morgannwg and Blaenau Morgannwg. I. The Lordship of Ogmore’, in T. B. Pugh (ed.), Glamorgan County History, Vol. 3: The Middle Ages (Cardiff: University of Wales Press for the Glamorgan County History Committee, 1971), 285–311. ‘Richard II and the Principality of Chester, 1397–9’, in F. R. H. Du Boulay and C. M. Barron (eds.), The Reign of Richard II: Essays in Honour of May McKisack (London: Athlone Press, 1971), 256–79. Review: Dorothy Sylvester, The Rural Landscape of the Welsh Borderland (London: Macmillan, 1969), History, 56 (1971), 337–8. Review: Glyn Roberts, Aspects of Welsh History: Selected Papers . . . (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1969), WHR, 5 (1970–1), 308–10.

266

Rhidian Grifﬁths 1972

Review: Dafydd Jenkins, Cyfraith Hywel: Rhagarweiniad i Gyfraith Gynhenid Cymru’r Oesoedd Canol (Llandysul: Gwasg Gomer, 1970), Barn, 111 (1972), 76–7. Review: J. L. Kirby, Henry IV of England (London: Constable, 1970), WHR, 6 (1972–3), 100–2. Review article: ‘Thomas of Lancaster’ [J. R. Maddicott, Thomas of Lancaster 1307–1322: A Study in the Reign of Edward II (London: Oxford University Press, 1970) ], WHR, 6 (1972–3), 201–10.

1974 ‘Colonial Wales’, P&P, 65 (1974), 3–23. ‘Cymru yn Oes Dafydd ap Gwilym’ [Wales in the Age of Dafydd ap Gwilym], Taliesin, 28 (1974), 5–23. Review: T. Jones Pierce, Medieval Welsh Society (ed. J. B. Smith) (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1973), EHR, 89 (1974), 851–4. 1975 ‘Race Relations in Post-conquest Wales: Confrontation and Compromise’, THSC for 1974 (1975), 32–56. Review: Anthony Tuck, Richard II and the English Nobility (London: Edward Arnold, 1973), History, 60 (1975), 437–8. Review: K. B. McFarlane, The Nobility of Later Medieval England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973), WHR, 7 (1974–5), 474–7.

1976 Review: R. B. Patterson, Earldom of Gloucester Charters (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), History, 61 (1976), 98–9.

1977 [with R. I. Moore, David N. Dilks, and R. H. C. Davis], ‘University Historians and the 18+’, History, 62 (1977), 232–8. Review: William Rees (ed.), Calendar of Ancient Petitions relating to Wales (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1975), History, 62 (1977), 101–2. Review: The Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. XVI, 7–15 Richard II (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Ofﬁce, 1974), History, 62 (1977), 312–13. Review: Louisa D. Duls, Richard II in the Early Chronicles (The Hague: Mouton, 1975), History, 62 (1977), 313.

Bibliography of Published Writings of Rees Davies

267

1978 Lordship and Society in the March of Wales 1282–1400 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978). ‘Brecon’, in R. A. Grifﬁths (ed.), Boroughs of Mediaeval Wales (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1978), 47–70. Review: Keith Williams-Jones (ed.), The Merioneth Lay Subsidy Roll 1292–3 (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1976), History, 63 (1978), 286–7.

1979 Historical Perception: Celts and Saxons (an inaugural lecture delivered at the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, on 22 November 1978) (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1979). ‘Kings, Lords and Liberties in the March of Wales, 1066–1272’, TRHS, 5th ser., 29 (1979), 41–61. Review: F. G. Cowley, The Monastic Order in South Wales 1066–1349 (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1977), History, 64 (1979), 264. Review: Constance Bullock-Davies, Menstrellorum multitudo: Minstrels at a Royal Feast (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1978), History, 64 (1979), 270–1.

1980 ‘The Status of Women and the Practice of Marriage in Late-medieval Wales’, in Dafydd Jenkins and Morfydd E. Owen (eds.), The Welsh Law of Women (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1980), 93–114. Review: Edmund King, England 1175–1425 (London: Routledge, 1979), History, 65 (1980), 104–5. Review: G. B. Stow, jun. (ed.), Historia vitae et regni Ricardi Secundi (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977), History, 65 (1980), 109.

1981 ‘Trawsnewid Cyffrous yn Hanes Cymru’ [An Exciting Transformation in Welsh History], Y Faner, 11 Medi 1981, 7–8. ‘ ’Sgrifennu Hanes Cymru yn y Gymraeg’ [Writing Welsh History in Welsh], Y Faner, 18 Medi 1981, 6–7. ‘Teyrnged Ymarferol i R. T. Jenkins’ [A Practical Tribute to R. T. Jenkins], Y Faner, 25 Medi 1981, 14–15. Review: J. L. Bolton, The Medieval English Economy 1150–1500 (London: Dent, 1980), History, 66 (1981), 118–19. Review: G. W. S. Barrow, The Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), History, 66 (1981), 285–6. Review: Michael Prestwich, The Three Edwards: War and State in England 1272–1377 (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1980), WHR, 10 (1980–1), 556–8.

268

Rhidian Grifﬁths 1982

‘Soch! soch!’ [A Defence of Welsh Historians Against the Accusation of Being Inbred], Y Faner, 12 Chwefror 1982, 7–8. ‘Neges Llywelyn’ [Llywelyn’s Message], Y Faner, 28 Mai 1982, 8–9. Review: Peter Stein, Legal Evolution: The Story of an Idea (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), History, 67 (1982), 75–6. Review: Janet Meisel, Barons of the Welsh Frontier: The Corbet, Pantulf, and FitzWarin Families 1066–1272 (Lincoln, Nebr.; London: University of Nebraska Press, 1980); A. C. Reeves, Newport Lordship 1317–1536 (Ann Arbor: University Microﬁlms International for Newport Museum and Art Gallery, 1979), History, 67 (1982), 117–19. Review: Nigel Saul, Knights and Esquires: The Gloucestershire Gentry in the Fourteenth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981), History, 67 (1982), 476–7.

1983 ‘Ail-gloriannu Owain Glyn Dwr’ ˆ [Re-evaluating Owain Glyn Dwr], ˆ Y Faner, 21 Hydref 1983, 12–13. ‘Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, Prince of Wales’, Journal of the Merioneth Historical and Record Society, 9 (1981–3), 264–77. Review: Robert Bartlett, Gerald of Wales 1146–1223 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), History, 68 (1983), 140–1. Review: M. T. Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record: England 1066–1307 (London: Edward Arnold, 1979), History, 68 (1983), 311–12. Review: Robin Frame, English Lordship in Ireland 1318–1361 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), WHR, 11 (1982–3), 559–61.

1984 ‘Buchedd a Moes y Cymry’ [The Manners and Morals of the Welsh], WHR, 12 (1984–5), 155–79. ‘Law and National Identity in Thirteenth-century Wales’, in R. R. Davies, Ralph A. Grifﬁths, Ieuan Gwynedd Jones, and Kenneth O. Morgan (eds.), Welsh Society and Nationhood: Historical Essays Presented to Glanmor Williams (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1984), 51–69. ‘Lordship or Colony?’, in J. F. Lydon (ed.), The English in Medieval Ireland (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 1984), 142–60.

1985 ‘Henry I and Wales’, in Henry Mayr-Harting and R. I. Moore (eds.), Studies in Medieval History presented to R. H. C. Davis (London: Hambledon, 1985), 133–47. Review: L. C. Hector and Barbara F. Harvey (eds.), The Westminster Chronicle 1381–1394 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), History, 70 (1985), 111–12.

Bibliography of Published Writings of Rees Davies

269

1986 ‘The Administration of Law in Medieval Wales: The Role of the ynad cwmwd (judex patrie)’, in T. M. Charles-Edwards, Morfydd E. Owen, and D. B. Walters (eds.), Lawyers and Laymen: Studies Presented to Professor Dafydd Jenkins on his Seventy-ﬁfth Birthday, Gwyl ˆ Ddewi 1986 (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1986), 258–73.

1987 Conquest, Coexistence, and Change: Wales 1063–1415 (Oxford: Clarendon Press; University of Wales Press, 1987); reissued as: The Age of Conquest: Wales 1063–1415 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990); reissued with updated bibliography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). ‘Ar Drywydd Owain Glyndwr’ ˆ [On the Track of Owain Glyndwr], ˆ in Geraint H. Jenkins (ed.), Cof Cenedl II: Ysgrifau ar Hanes Cymru (Llandysul: Gomer, 1987), 1–26. Review: K. J. Stringer (ed.), Essays on the Nobility of Medieval Scotland (Edinburgh: Donald, 1985), WHR, 13 (1986–7), 367–9; repr. with corrections, ibid., 492–4.

1988 ‘Edward I and Wales’, in Trevor Herbert and Gareth Elwyn Jones (eds.), Edward I and Wales (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1988), 1–10. ‘Gerald and the Princes of Wales’, in Charles Kightly (ed.), A Mirror of Medieval Wales: Gerald of Wales and his Journey of 1188 (Cardiff: Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments, 1988), 58–61. ‘In Praise of British History’, in R. R. Davies (ed.), The British Isles 1100–1500: Comparisons, Contrasts and Connections (Edinburgh: Donald, 1988), 9–26. ‘Introduction’, in R. R. Davies (ed.), The British Isles 1100–1500: Comparisons, Contrasts and Connections (Edinburgh: Donald, 1988), 1–8. Review: Una Rees, The Cartulary of Haughmond Abbey (Cardiff: University of Wales Press for Shropshire Archaeological Society, 1985), EHR, 103 (1988), 1034. Review: Art Cosgrove (ed.), A New History of Ireland, II: Medieval Ireland 1169–1534 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), History, 73 (1988), 291–3. Review: Katharine Simms, From Kings to Warlords: The Changing Political Structure of Gaelic Ireland in the Later Middle Ages (Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, 1987), WHR, 14 (1988–9), 135–7.

1989 ‘Frontier Arrangements in Fragmented Societies: Ireland and Wales’, in Robert Bartlett and A. MacKay (eds.), Medieval Frontier Societies (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), 77–100. Review: Michael Prestwich, Edward I (London: Methuen, 1988), History, 74 (1989), 509.

270

Rhidian Grifﬁths 1990

Domination and Conquest: The Experience of Ireland, Scotland and Wales 1100–1300 (The Wiles Lectures given at the Queen’s University of Belfast, 1988). (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). National Curriculum History Committee for Wales, Final Report (Chairman R. R. Davies). (Cardiff: The Welsh Ofﬁce, 1990). ‘The History Curriculum in Wales’, Welsh Historian, 14 (Autumn 1990), 3–6. Review: John R. Kenyon and Richard Avent (eds.), Castles in Wales and the Marches: Essays in Honour of D. J. Cathcart King (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1987), EHR, 105 (1990), 437–8. Review: David Crouch (ed.), Llandaff Episcopal Acta 1140–1287 (Cardiff: South Wales Record Society, 1989), Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 41 (1990), 97–8. Review: J. M. W. Bean, From Lord to Patron: Lordship in Late Medieval England (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1989), WHR, 15 (1990–1), 284–6. 1992 ‘Dyfodol ein Gorffennol’ [The Future of our Past], Y Traethodydd, 147 (1992), 5–11. 1993 ‘The English State and the ‘‘Celtic’’ Peoples, 1100–1400’, Journal of Historical Sociology, 6 (1993), 1–14. ‘Wales and Britain in the Medieval World: An Approach to Study Unit 16’, Welsh Historian, 19 (Summer 1993), 3–6. Review: Carole Fink, Marc Bloch: A Life in History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), EHR, 108 (1993), 777–8. 1994 ‘Dinbych yn Oes Owain Glyndwr’ ˆ [Denbigh in the Age of Owain Glyndwr], ˆ Transactions of the Denbighshire Historical Society, 43 (1994), 27–44. ‘The Failure of the First British Empire? England’s Relations with Ireland, Scotland and Wales, 1066–1500’, in Nigel Saul (ed.), England in Europe (London: Collins & Brown, 1994), 121–32. ‘The Peoples of Britain and Ireland, 1100–1400. Part 1: Identities’, TRHS, 6th ser., 4 (1994), 1–20. Review: Hartmut Atsma and Andr´e Burgui`ere, Marc Bloch aujourd’hui. Histoire compar´ee ´ ´ ´ et sciences sociales (Paris: Editions de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 1990), EHR, 109 (1994), 548–9. Review: Robert Bartlett, The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change 950–1350 (London: Allen Lane, 1993), EHR, 109 (1994), 656–8. Review: James Given, State and Society in Medieval Europe: Gwynedd and Languedoc under Outside Rule (Ithaca; London: Cornell University Press, 1990), EHR, 109 (1994), 691–2.

Bibliography of Published Writings of Rees Davies

271

Review: Huw Pryce, Native Law and the Church in Medieval Wales (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), WHR, 17 (1994–5), 127–8. 1995 Owain Glyn Dwr: ˆ Hanes a Chof Gwlad [Owain Glyn Dwr: ˆ History and Folk Memory] (Darlith Eisteddfodol y Brifysgol 1995) (Caerdydd: Prifysgol Cymru, 1995). The Revolt of Owain Glyn Dwr ˆ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995). ‘Y Busnes Arwyr ’ma’ [This Business of Heroes], Yr Aradr, 6 (1995), 16–18. ‘The Peoples of Britain and Ireland, 1100–1400. Part 2: Names, Boundaries and Regnal Solidarities’, TRHS, 6th ser., 5 (1995), 1–20. ‘What is Happening to British Universities?’, Welsh Journal of Education, 5/1 (1995), 4–15. [with A. D. M. Barrell], ‘Land, Lineage, and Revolt in North-east Wales, 1243–1441: A Case Study’, Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies, 29 (Summer 1995), 27–51. 1996 The Matter of Britain and the Matter of England (an inaugural lecture delivered before the University of Oxford on 29 February 1996) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996). ‘ ‘‘Keeping the Natives in Order’’: The English King and the ‘‘Celtic’’ Rulers, 1066–1216’, Peritia, 10 (1996), 212–24. ‘The Peoples of Britain and Ireland, 1100–1400. Part 3: Laws and Customs’, TRHS, 6th ser., 6 (1996), 1–23. [with A. D. M. Barrell, O. J. Padel, and Ll. B. Smith], ‘The Dyffryn Clwyd Court Roll Project, 1340—1352 and 1389–1399: A Methodology and Some Preliminary Findings’, in Zvi Razi and Richard Smith (eds.), Medieval Society and the Manor Court (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 260–97. Review: Elissa R. Henken, National Redeemer: Owain Glyndwr ˆ in Welsh Tradition (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1996), Taliesin, 95 (1996), 105–7. 1997 ‘The Peoples of Britain and Ireland, 1100–1400. Part 4: Language and Historical Mythology’, TRHS, 6th ser., 7 (1997), 1–24. Review: Geoffrey Hodges, Owain Glyn Dwr: ˆ The War of Independence in the Welsh Borders (Woonton: Logaston Press, 1995), EHR, 112 (1997), 971. Review: Simon Forde, Lesley Johnson, and Alan V. Murray (eds.), Concepts of National Identity in the Middle Ages (Leeds: Leeds Studies in English, 1995), EHR, 112 (1997), 1245–6. 1998 ‘A Medieval Merioneth Album: Troi Dalennau’r Gorffennol’ [Turning the Pages of the Past], Journal of the Merioneth Historical and Record Society, 13 (1998), 1–18. ‘Piety and Punishment’, Heritage in Wales, 10 (Summer 1998), 6–8.

272

Rhidian Grifﬁths

Review: Chris Given-Wilson (ed.), The Chronicle of Adam Usk, 1377–1421 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), EHR, 113 (1998), 978–9. Review: John Lydon, Law and Disorder in Thirteenth-century Ireland: The Dublin Parliament of 1297 (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1997), WHR, 19 (1998–9), 345–7. 1999 Beth yw’r ots gennyf i am—Brydain? [What Do I Care About—Britain?] (Darlith goffa Syr Thomas Parry-Williams, 1998) (Aberystwyth: University of Wales Centre for Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies, 1999). ‘The Life, Travels, and Library of an Early Reader of Piers Plowman’, Yearbook of Langland Studies, 13 (1999), 49–64. Review: Huw Pryce (ed.), Literacy in Medieval Celtic Societies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), EHR, 114 (1999), 412. 2000 The First English Empire: Power and Identities in the British Isles 1093–1343 (The Ford Lectures delivered in the University of Oxford in Hilary Term 1998) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). Heartlands and Outbacks: The Medieval English Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). ‘Brecon, Owain Glyn Dwr, ˆ and Dafydd Gam’, Brycheiniog, 32 (2000), 51–60. ‘Owain Glyn Dwr ˆ a’i Apˆel’ [Owain Glyn Dwr ˆ and his Appeal], Y Traethodydd, 155 (2000), 198–209. ‘Owain Glyn Dwr: ˆ Dyn a’i Wrthryfel’ [Owain Glyn Dwr: ˆ One Man and his Revolt], Etifeddiaeth y Cymry, 16 (Haf 2000), 6–10. ‘Owain Glyn Dwr: ˆ One Man and his Revolt’, Heritage in Wales, 16 (Summer 2000), 6–10. ‘Shakespeare’s Glendower and Owain Glyn Dwr’, ˆ The Historian, 66 (2000), 22–5. Review: J. Beverley Smith, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd: Prince of Wales (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1998), EHR, 115 (2000), 413–14. 2001 ‘Cyﬂwyniad/Foreword’, in J. Beverley Smith and Llinos Beverley Smith (eds.), History of Merioneth. Volume II: The Middle Ages (Cardiff: University of Wales Press on behalf of the Merioneth Historical and Record Society, 2001), [p. vii]. ‘Imagination and Identity: The Case for History’, Welsh Historian, 31 (Spring 2001), 3–6. ‘Inventing Countries’, in David Dickson, Seán Duffy, Cathal Ó Háinle, and Ian Campbell Ross (eds.), Ireland and Scotland: Nation, Region, Identity; Náisiún, Régiún, Céannacht; Nàisean, Ceárn Tìre, Fèineachà: A Record of the Inter-disciplinary Conference held in Trinity College Dublin and the Irish Film Centre, 29–30 September 2000 (Dublin: Centre for Irish-Scottish Studies, TCD for the Irish-Scottish Academic Initiative, 2001), 13–17.

Bibliography of Published Writings of Rees Davies

273

‘Iolo Goch, Rhosier Mortimer a Piers Plowman?’, Llˆen Cymru, 24 (2001), 164–9. ‘Kinsmen, Neighbours and Communities in Wales and the Western British Isles, c.1100–c.1400’, in Pauline Stafford, Janet L. Nelson, and Jane Martindale (eds.), Law, Laity and Solidarities: Essays in Honour of Susan Reynolds (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2001), 172–87. Review: Joep Leerssen and Ann Rigney (eds.), Historians and Social Values (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2000), EHR, 116 (2001), 437–8. Review: Sarah Rees Jones, Richard Marks, and A. J. Minnis (eds.), Courts and Regions in Medieval Europe (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer; York Medieval Press, 2000), EHR, 116 (2001), 943–4. Review: T. M. Charles-Edwards, Morfydd E. Owen, and Paul Russell (eds.), The Welsh King and his Court (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2000), EHR, 116 (2001), 1219–21. Review: R. I. Moore, The First European Revolution, c. 970–1215 (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 52 (2001), 715–17. 2002 Owain Glyn Dwr, ˆ trwy Ras Duw, Tywysog Cymru [Owain Glyn Dwr, ˆ by the Grace of God, Prince of Wales] (Talybont: Y Lolfa, 2002). ‘Professor R. R. Davies’s Address’ [at the reception for the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion at St James’s Palace, Thursday 1 November 2001], THSC for 2001 (2002), 6–7. ‘The State: The Tyranny of a Concept?’, Journal of Historical Sociology, 15 (2002), 71–4. Review: Mark S. Hagger, The Fortunes of a Norman Family: The de Verduns in England, Ireland and Wales 1066–1216 (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2001), EHR, 117 (2002), 452. Review: J. Beverley Smith and Llinos Beverley Smith (eds.), History of Merioneth. Volume II: The Middle Ages (Cardiff: University of Wales Press on behalf of the Merioneth Historical and Record Society, 2001), Heritage in Wales, 23 (Winter 2002), 22–3. Review article: ‘The History of the British Isles?’ [Barbara Harvey (ed.), The Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries 1066–c.1280 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) ], WHR, 21 (2002–3), 357–60. 2003 The King of England and the Prince of Wales, 1277–84: Law, Politics, and Power (Kathleen Hughes memorial lectures on mediaeval Welsh history; 3) (Cambridge: Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Celtic, University of Cambridge, 2003). ‘The Medieval State: The Tyranny of a Concept?’, Journal of Historical Sociology, 16 (2003), 280–300. ‘On Being Welsh: A Historian’s Viewpoint’, THSC for 2002 (2003), 29–40. Review: Hugh M. Thomas, The English and the Normans: Ethnic Hostility, Assimilation, and Identity, 1066–c.1220 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), EHR, 148 (2003), 1308–10. Review: S. H. Rigby (ed.), A Companion to Britain in the Later Middle Ages (Malden, Mass.; Oxford: Blackwell, 2003), Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 54 (2003), 755.

274

Rhidian Grifﬁths 2004

‘The Identity of ‘‘Wales’’ in the Thirteenth Century’, in R. R. Davies and Geraint H. Jenkins (eds.), From Medieval to Modern Wales: Historical Essays in Honour of Kenneth O. Morgan and Ralph A. Grifﬁths (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2004), 45–63. ‘Wales and History: Small Country, Large Issues’, Welsh Historian, 33 (Autumn 2004), 5–9. Contributions to: The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004): Dafydd [David] Gam (d. 1415) (revision); John Trevor [Siˆon Trefor] (d. 1410/1412) (revision); Lloyd, Sir John Edward (1861–1947); Monmouth, John of (c.1182–1248) (revision); Mortimer, Sir Edmund (IV) (1376–1408/9) (revision); Mortimer, Roger (V), ﬁrst earl of March (1287–1330); Mortimer, Roger (VI), second earl of March (1328–1360); Mortimer, Roger (VII), fourth earl of March and sixth earl of Ulster (1374–1398); Tiptoft [Tibetot], Robert, Lord Tiptoft (1228?–98) (revision); Zouche [Zouch], Alan de la (d. 1270) (revision). Review: Peter Lord, The Visual Culture of Wales: Medieval Vision (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2003), Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 55 (2004), 571. 2005 ‘Colin Richmond: Historian and Friend’, in Margaret Aston and Rosemary Horrox (eds.), Much Heaving and Shoving: Late-medieval Gentry and their Concerns: Essays for Colin Richmond ( [Chipping]: Aston and Horrox, 2005), 1–4. ‘In its Modest Way’, Heritage in Wales, 31 (Summer 2005), 18–20. ‘Rees ar Glan’ [Rees on Glan], Etifeddiaeth y Cymry, 31 (Haf 2005), 22–3. ‘Rees on Glan’, Heritage in Wales, 31 (Summer 2005), 22–3. ‘Yn ei Ddull Diymhongar ei hun’ [In its Modest Way], Etifeddiaeth y Cymry, 31 (Haf 2005), 18–20.

Index Aberdeen, 32 Aberffraw, 49–50 Aberystwyth, University of Wales at, 7–10 Æthelfrith, king of Northumbria, 59, 60, 65 agriculture, 27–30 arable, 27–8, 119–20 pastoral, 28–9, 120 Albertus Magnus, 24–5 Aldfrith, king of Northumbria, 59 Alexander the Great, 166 Alfonso I, king of Asturias, 70 Alfonso VI, king of Castile, 34 Alfred, king of England, 55 aliens, see denization Anglesey, Ynys Mˆon, 42, 49 ‘Anglicization’, 39, 41 Anglo-Normans, see Normans Anglo-Saxons, see England architecture, 23–6, 90–1, 186–7, 189 Aristotle, 12, 244 Armagh, see of, 137 Arthur, ‘king of Britain’, 166 Arwystli, dispute, 146, 206 assemblies, 15–16, 75, 248–9 Augustine, saint, of Canterbury, 54, 59–60, 65 authority, 11–22, 26, 42 awdlau, see Wales, poetry of Aznar, José María, 78 Balliol, Edward, ‘king of Scotland’, 155, 157, 160 Bangor (N. Ireland), 23–4 Bangor-on-Dee (Cheshire), 59 Bannockburn, battle of, 154 ‘barbarians’, 64–5, 81, 82, 91 Bartlett, Robert, 37 Basques, Basque Country, 28, 76 Bayeux Tapestry, 67 Beaufort, family, 177, 234, 239 Bede, 25–6, 34, 52–67 Ecclesiastical History, 52–3, 55, 57–60, 61–7 beggars, 188–9 Berbers, 82 Berwick, 32, 111 the Bible, 57–8 Biscop, Benedict, 25 Bloch, Marc, 3, 7

Bohemia, 42, 49, 176–7 Bonnassie, Pierre, 72 Bosworth, battle of, 239, 240 Bridget, saint, of Sweden, 167 Bristol, 207, 215, 216–17, 220–1 Britons, 26, 53, 58, 59–67 in Scotland, see Welsh in Scotland Brittany, Bretons, 27, 29, 63–4, 66 as Armorica, 63–4 Bromﬁeld and Yale, lordship of, 142 Bruce, Edward, earl of Carrick, ‘king of Ireland’, 154 Bruce, Robert, see Robert I Bruges, 30, 173, 241 Buckingham, Stafford family, dukes of, 228 bureaucracy, 11–12, 19–21, 43, 132, 135, 242 de Burgh, family, Walter, 131 William (d. 1333), 158 Bush, Michael, 243, 260 Cade, Jack, rebellion of, 250–1, 256 Cadwallon, king of Gwynedd (d. 633/4), 65, 66 Cadzand, 164–5, 167–8, 174 Caernarfon, 32 Calais, 164–5, 167, 232, 235, 239 Calvin’s case (1608), 140–1 Canterbury, 54, 65 Cantilupe, Nicholas, 171–2 Carlow, lordship of, 134, 154 Carmarthen, 131 Carpenter, David, 41 Carrick, earl of, see Bruce, Edward Carthusians, 164–80 and diplomatic treaties, 167–8 see also Edward III, and Carthusians Castell y Bere, castle, 45 Castile, 72–4, 76, 82 see also Spain castles, 40, 43–4, 45–6, 90–1, 202–3 Castro, Américo, 70, 73, 77, 82 Catalonia, 36, 72, 75, 76, 77 Causantín (Constantine) mac Aeda, king of Alba/Scotland, 114 Celts, ‘Celtic world’, 23, 26, 54–5 Celtic revival, 88, 94 Ceolwulf, king of Wessex, 66 Ceredigion, Cardiganshire, 42

276

Index

Ceredigion, Cardiganshire, (cont.) Clare lords of, 43 charity, 186–7, 188–9, 192, 193–4 Charles IV, king of France, 170 Chaucer, Alice, duchess of Suffolk, 229–30, 235 Cheshire, 195–210 Chester, 196–8, 199, 202, 203, 204, 206–10, 212, 215 battle of, 59, 67 constables of, 196–7, 198–9 earls of, 198 Ranulph II (d. 1153), 198, 200, 201 Ranulph III (d. 1232), 195, 201, 202–3 chivalry, 35–6, 40, 48, 165–6, 177–80, 184, 231, 240 Chrétien de Troyes, 35 Church, the Christian eremitic movements in, 168–9 and immigration, 217–18, 224–5 and national identity, 54, 55–8, 69–71, 76–8, 81–2, 206–7 and secular government, 12–14, 131, 252–3, 254 see also Rome; monasteries; Reformation Cicero, 244, 259 Cistercians, 35–6, 174, 199 in Wales, 42–3, 48 civility, 34–6, 90, 91–2, 233, 239–40 see also ‘barbarians’ Clare, family, 43, 131, 132, 134 Gilbert de, earl of Gloucester (d. 1295), 130, 132, 147–8 Richard ﬁtz Gilbert de, ‘Strongbow’, 128–9, 134 clearance, 80–1 Clovis, king of the Franks, 61 Clydesdale, 98–124 Clyn, John, 153 Cobban, Alfred, 262 coinage, 44 Coke, Edward, 141, 145 colonization, 80–1 in Ireland, 85–6, 97, 126–7 in Scotland, 98–9, 120 in Spain, 70–2, 74, 80–1 in Wales, 38, 42–3 see also migration Columba, saint, 26, 61 commons, common people, 243–60 common weal, commonwealth, 238, 244, 248–9, 251–3, 257, 258, 259, 260 commune, 244–5, 246, 248–50 community, commonalty, 13, 18, 21–2, 73, 83, 162, 243–60 Connacht, Connaught, 133, 160

conquest, 21, 37–8, 42–3, 58, 67, 68, 70–1, 85–7, 97, 126–7, 130, 137–8, 150, 166, 206, 242 Conrad II, emperor, 14 Conwy, Conway, 32 consultation, 13, 15, 248–9, 259 core, centre and periphery, 23–36, 37, 181 Cornwall, 64, 217 coronation, see inauguration Cosgrove, Art, 85 councils, counsel, royal, 15 local, 15, 82–3, 247 see also representation; assemblies Courcy, John de, conqueror of Ulster, 130 Coventry, 220–1, 222–3, 247 Crouch, David, 41 culture exchange, fusion, 34–6, 37–9, 40–2, 45, 48, 53–5, 70, 77, 81–3, 123–4, 133–6, 137–8, 141–3, 164–80, 191, 203–5, 206–7, 210, 220–1, 225 interaction, tension, resistance, 23–4, 25–6, 34, 35–6, 46–7, 48–51, 70, 78, 137–8, 143–4, 166–7, 179, 181, 207, 208–9, 213, 215–19, 225 Cumbria, Cumberland, 98, 109–11, 114, 120 curses, 59–60 custom, 13, 21–2 in Wales, 46–8, 142, 147–8, 185–94 see also law Cynddelw Brydydd Mawr, poet, 47, 184, 198 cynnwys, law of, 142 cywyddau, see Wales, poetry of Czech, see Bohemia Dafydd ap Llywelyn, prince of Gwynedd, 41, 46–7 Dafydd Nanmor, poet, 185, 186 Dante, 56 David I, king of Scotland, 98–9, 101, 105, 107–9, 111–13, 114, 123 David II, king of Scotland, 157, 159–60, 163 Davies, R. Rees, 1–10, 11, 19, 20–2, 23, 37–8, 45, 53, 73, 80, 83, 85–6, 97, 98–9, 124, 125–6, 127, 136, 137, 139–40, 146, 156, 157, 181, 194, 201, 204, 208–9, 215, 225, 227, 242, 260, 261–3 works of, 3, 7, 8, 23, 125, 242, 261–74 Davis, Ralph, 262–3 Davis, Thomas, 94 Dee, river, Afon Dyfrdwy, 195, 198–9, 202, 206, 208 Denbigh, lordship of, 143 denization, 140–1, 144–5, 212, 218

Index depopulation (in Spain), 70–1, 74, 79–80 deposition (of kings), 15 Desmond, earls of, 158 Maurice ﬁtz Thomas, ﬁrst earl, 155, 160 Devon, 64 Dieulacres, abbey of, 199–201 diplomacy, diplomats, 170–3, 230–2, 233 disloyalty, see treason Dolbadarn, castle, 45 Dolwyddelan, castle, 45 Don, Dwnn, family, 191, 193, 224 Douglas, earls of, 159–60 Down, county, 23–4 bishop of, see Malachy, saint priory of St Patrick, 130 Dublin, 128, 129, 132, 202 Dudley, Edmund, 257–8 Duero basin, 71–2, 74 Dupplin Moor, battle of, 159 economy, economics, 26–31 Edinburgh, 32 Treaty of, 29 Edward I, king of England, 45, 126, 134, 137–8, 139–40, 141, 143, 146, 147–9, 156, 169, 206 and liberties/franchises, 127, 130, 131–2, 147–8 Edward II, king of England, 154, 158 wife of, Isabel of France, 169–70 Edward III, king of England, 155–6, 157, 158, 162–3, 164–8, 174–5, 180 and Carthusians, 172–7 wife of, Philippa of Hainault, 166, 172 Edward IV, king of England, 224, 228, 231, 232–3 Edwards, J. G., 127 Edwin, king of Northumbria, 57 Einhard, 64 election, 14–15, 18–19 Elfael, lordship of, 150 Elyot, Sir Thomas, 257, 259 Empire, the Holy Roman, see Germany England, English, as Anglo-Saxons or Saxons, 53–5, 58–67, 86, 87, 89 assertions in France, 156, 163, 164–6, 179–80, 213, 229, 231 early identiﬁcations of, 53–5, 58–9, 63, 66 historiography, history of, 156–7, 195–6, 228, 241, 243–4 hospitality in, 182, 190–1, 191–2 imperialism of, 139–40, 156–7, 163, 164–6, 177, 179–80, 211, 229, 231 inﬂuence on other cultures and polities, 38–9, 40–1, 50–1, 124, 156, 181, 211

277

inﬂuenced by other cultures and polities, 133–6, 166–8, 169–70, 174, 179 jurisdiction over Wales, 139–41, 145–52 parliament of, 248–50, 253, 254, 259 relations with Low Countries, 164–7, 170 rule over British Isles, 153–63, 165 see also Normans, Anglo-Normans; Irish in England; Scots in England; Welsh in England; government, in England; Hundred Years War Estepa Díez, Carlos, 73 Ethelbert, king of Kent, 57 etiquette, 183, 190–1 evangelising, 60–2 ‘Europeanization’, 24, 36, 37–9, 41, 46, 48 exegesis, 57–8 Fastolf, Sir John, 231 Fauconberg, Thomas Neville, ‘bastard of’, 226–7, 239 feudalism, 70, 72–3, 78–9, 98–9, 105, 115, 120–4, 126, 129 Flanagan, Marie Therese, 128 Flanders, Flemings, see Low Countries Fortescue, Sir John, 145–6, 240, 251, 259 Fox, Richard, bishop of Durham, 219 Frame, Robin, 45, 85, 157 France, French, 24, 27, 34–6 government in, 15, 43, 44 language of, 34–5, 53 see also English assertions in France; Hundred Years War Franco, Francisco, 75–6 Franks, 53, 58, 61, 64, 66 frontiers, 71, 195, 197, 200–2, 211–13, 225 fur, fur trade, 30–1 ‘Gaelicization’ in Scotland, 111–12, 114–15, 119–20, 161–2 galanas, law of, 41 Galicia, Spain, 70, 72, 76 Galloway, 112, 124, 154 Gascoigne, Thomas, 251 genealogy, 49 Genet, Jean-Philippe, 250 de Geneville, lords of Ludlow and Trim, 125–6 Geoffrey, 130, 133 gentry, 162, 184–5, 185–6, 189–90, 232, 237 Geoffrey of Monmouth, 48, 64 geography, 23–36 medieval ideas of, 24–5, 31–2 see also maps

278

Index

Gerald of Wales, 27, 30, 43, 46, 49, 86, 182, 195 Germany, Germans, 15, 27, 29, 30, 34–5, 167 Gierke, Otto, 12 Gildas, 58, 64, 65–6 Glamorgan, and Morgannwg, lordship of, 130, 131 Glasgow, see of, 98, 100, 107–8, 109, 111–13, 124 Glendalough, Co. Wicklow, 91 Glick, Thomas, 78 Gloucester, dukes of, Humphrey, 229, 239 Thomas of Woodstock, 166, 209 earls of, see Clare see also Richard III Glyndwr, ˆ Glyn Dwr, ˆ Owain, rebellion of, 144–5, 204, 208–10, 220 Govan, parish, 105, 114 Gower, lordship of, 131, 150 government, 11–22, 244–5 in England, 29, 40–4, 162–3, 212, 228, 237–8, 243, 248–9, 254 in Ireland, 126–7, 129–38, 157, 160–1 in Wales, 37–51, 126–7, 129, 130–2, 137–8 in Spain, 74–8, 79 local, 18–19, 82–3 regional, 76, 83 see also law; bureaucracy; kingship; lordship; towns, government of Gregory I, ‘the Great’, pope, 54, 61, 66 Gregory of Tours, 58 Grifﬁths, Ralph, 204 Gruffudd ap Cynan, prince of Gwynedd, 197, 206 Gruffudd ap Llywelyn (d. 1063), king of the Britons, 197 Gruffudd ap Llywelyn, son of Llywelyn ap Iorwerth, 46–7 Guto’r Glyn, 184, 185–6, 190, 207 Gwent, 42 Gwynedd, economy of, 44 government, rulers in, 40, 42–50 sovereignty of, in Wales, 49–50 Halidon Hill, battle of, 159, 165 Harriss, Gerald, 162, 240 Harvey, Barbara, 227 Haverford, lordship of, 131 Heal, Felicity, 182, 191–2, 194 Henry II, emperor, 14 Henry III, emperor, 15

Henry II, king of England, 43, 45, 88, 128, 129, 133, 169, 174 Henry III, king of England, 126, 133 Henry IV, king of England, 144–5, 174, 228 Henry V, king of England, 177, 229, 231, 240 as prince of Wales, 208–10 Henry VI, king of England, 216, 229, 230, 239 wife of, Margaret of Anjou, 231, 233 Henry VII, king of England, 144, 148, 219, 221, 222, 240 Henry VIII, king of England, 140, 148 heraldry, 40 Hereford, 207, 210 Humphrey Bohun, earl of, 147–8, 149 hierarchy, 12–13, 17–18, 21–2, 73, 191, 245, 258 Higden, Ranulph, 194, 203 Holland, see Low Countries Holland, Penny (now Tucker), 232 Holywell, shrine of St Winifred at, 198 hospitality, 182–94 Hugh of Lincoln, saint, 172 Huizinga, Johan, 178 Hundred Years War, 164–6, 179–80, 212, 229 Hywel Dda, Welsh king, 47–8 identities, of individuals, personal, 228–9, 231, 236, 237, 238–9, 240–1 of peoples, nations, see peoples, identity of of regions, 73, 75–6, 83, 195–210 see also culture inauguration, 50, 155 The Iorwerth Redaction, law-book, 47 Ireland, Irish, 24, 25, 35–6, 43, 65, 157 Christian tradition of, 25–6, 60–1, 88, 91–2, 97 English royal government in, 126–9, 130–8, 154, 157, 160–1, 163 fusion/interaction of English and native culture in, 133–8 historiography, history of, 85–97, 125, 128, 161 hospitality in, 182, 185, 192–3 invader lordship and liberties in, 125–38, 158, 160, 169, 212, 215 Irish in England, 213–25 as aliens, 215–16, 217 native lordship in, 128–9, 133–7, 153–4, 155–6, 157, 160 ‘Milesian’ period of, 88–9, 93, 97 parliament of, 136, 137 Islam, Muslims, 56, 57,

Index in Spain, 68–72, 74, 76–8, 81–2 Isles, lords of, see Mac Domhnaill James IV, king of Scotland, 219 Jerusalem, 32, 33, 197 John, king of England, 45, 127–8, 129, 130 John XXII, pope, 168 John, Lewis, and family, 214, 220 Judaism, Jews, 56, 57 in Spain, 70, 77, 81–2 in Wales, 143 Keating, Geoffrey, 88, 94–5 Kelso, abbey of, 105, 113, 114, 121 Kentigern, saint, 124 see also Glasgow, see of Kidd, Colin, 97 Kildare, 160 earls of, 129–30, 158 liberty of, 131 Kilkenny, lordship of, 132, 133, 153, 160 kin, kinship, 215 kingdoms, 14–16, 20, 42 kings, kingship, 12–16, 19–21, 27, 49, 154–7, 243, 248–9 see also individual kings and kingdoms Kleinstaaterei, 29 knighthood, knights, see chivalry or gentry Lacy, family, 196–7 Hugh de, 89, 128, 129, 133 Walter de, 129, 131 William de, 133 Lanark, sheriffdom of, 99–124 Lancaster, House of, 229–31, 234, 235, 237–8 language, 53–4, 242–5, 254–60 Laois, 153–4 law and identity, 20, 139–52 and jurisdiction, 126–7, 130–2 and kingship, 15, 41, 47–8, 242, 244–5, 260 canon law, 23, 244–5 common law (English), 41, 130–2, 137, 140–1, 142, 147–9 Irish law, 137 Roman law, 244–5 Welsh law, 139–52 native, 41, 46–8, 141–2, 146, 183, 192–3 Marcher, 127, 130, 142–3, 147–50 in the Principality, 141–3, 145–7, 152 ‘law of Wales’, 140, 147, 149 learning, 35, 46–50, 233–4, 259 Ledwich, Edward, 90–3, 95, 96

279

The Antiquities of Ireland (1791/4), 91–3 Leerssen, Joep, 88 legitimacy (political), legitimation, 11–22, 48–9, 80, 243, 245, 259 Leicester, 221, 223 Leinster, 126, 128–9, 131, 134, 154, 156, 160 see also Mic Mhurchadha León, 72–4, 82 see also Spain Lesmahagow, barony and parish of, 100, 111, 113–23 Lewys (Lewis) Glyn Cothi, poet, 185, 207 Lewys Mˆon, poet, 186 ‘The Liberties of Arfon’, 47 ‘The Liberties of the Men of Powys’, 47 Liddy, Christian, 162 Lindisfarne, 25 Lionel of Antwerp, son of Edward III, 163 Llandaff, see of, 131 Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, prince of Gwynedd and Wales, 40, 44, 45, 126, 146, 206 Llywelyn ap Iorwerth, prince of Gwynedd, 40, 45, 46–7, 50, 126, 133 Joan, wife of, 45, 46–7 Lombardy, 27, 29 London, 173, 176, 212, 216, 218, 223, 227, 243, 246–7 University College, 5–7, 262 lords, lordship, 12–13, 16–17, 21, 27, 28, 136–8, 153–63, 223–4 absenteeism, 161–2 in England, 158, 162–3, 236–8 in Ireland, 125–38, 153–4, 157–8, 160–1 in Scotland, 98–124, 159–63 in Spain, 72–3, 80–1 in Wales, 41–50, 125–38, 161, 163, 185–7, 188–9, 191 see also Marcher lords Lothar I, emperor, 31 Lothian, 101, 110, 111, 120 Louis the Pious, emperor, 31 Louis IX, king of France, 168 Louis of Male, count of Flanders, 164, 167 Louth, 161 Low Countries, 27, 29, 164–8, 169, 170, 171–2 Flemings in Scotland, 101, 119–20 Lynch, Patrick, 94–5, 96 Mac Domhnaill, Eóin, John MacDonald, lord of the Isles, 160 McFarlane, K. B., 2, 6, 149, 228, 233, 235, 262–3 McKisack, May, 262 Mac Niocaill, Gearóid, 137 Madog ap Maredudd, king of Powys, 198, 200, 202

280

Index

Magna Carta, 130–1, 202, 248 Maitland, F. W., 152 Malachy, saint, bishop of Down, 23–5 Malcolm III, king of Scotland, 112 Malcolm IV, king of Scotland, 98, 101, 105, 109, 113, 119, 124 Malpas, Cheshire, barony, 198, 203–4 church, 204–5 Map, Walter, 182–3, 187 Mappa mundi, 32–3 maps, 31–3 March, earls of, see Mortimer Marcher lords, lordships, 21, 41–3, 45–6, 50, 125–7, 130–2, 137–8, 142–3, 147–50, 161, 188–9, 242 see also Wales, Marches of Marshal, family of, 134 William I, 129, 131 William II, 126, 134 Mauny, Gautier de, Walter de, 165, 172–3, 175, 178 Meath, 128, 129, 131, 133, 135–6, 154, 161 Mic Mhurchadha, MacMurrough, family, 134, 156, 157, 160 Diarmait Mac Murchada, Dermot Macmurrough, king of Leinster, 43, 128–9, 134 migration, 63–4, 70–2, 85–6, 120, 211–25 see also colonization Minoresses, 170 monasteries, 73 see also Cistercians; Carthusians; Minoresses Montgomery, castle, 45 Treaty of, 44 Moors, see Islam morality, political, 226–41 see also legitimacy More, Thomas, 228 Morison, Richard, 252–3 Mortimer, family of, Edmund (d. 1304), 149 Roger (d. 1282), 148 Roger (d. 1330), earl of March, 153–4, 158 Roger (d. 1381), earl of March, 158 Murchad Ó Máelsechlainn, king of Meath, 128, 133 Muslims, see Islam names, naming, 49, 203–5, 214, 242–3 Nantwich, 200, 206, 210 nationalism (modern), 68–71, 75, 76–7, 86, 88–9, 94, 241 nations, see peoples Nechtan, king of the Picts, 25

Netherlands, see Low Countries Neville, Cynthia, 160 Neville’s Cross, battle of, 159 Norfolk, Roger Bigod, earl of, 134, 149 ‘Normanization’, in Ireland, 85–7, 89–91 in Scotland, 98–9, 101–5, 112–13, 115–19, 122–4 in Wales, 38–43 Normans, Anglo-Normans, 85–97 ‘Norman Yoke’, theory of, 87 Northumbria, kingdom of, 112, 120 Norway, 32 Novgorod, 30 O’Briens, see Uí Bhriain Ó Ceinnéidigh, Edmund, lord of north Tipperary, 135 O’Connors, see Uí Chonchobhair O’Conor, Charles, 92, 95 Ó Mordha, Laoighseach, Lysagh O’More, 153–4, 163 O’Neills, see Uí Neill Ormond, earls of, 132, 135, 158 Ormrod, Mark, 162–3 Otto I, emperor, 15 Oxford, 215 university of, 5–6, 36, 224–5, 261–3 council of (1177), 129 Owain Gwynedd, king of Gwynedd, 198, 202 Papacy, popes, 34, 54 see also Rome, Christian Church of Paris, 32, 34–5, 165, 168, 173 Paris, Matthew, 41 Pastor de Togneri, Reyna, 72 Patrick, saint, 61, 93, 94, 97 Pavia, 14 peasants, 189–90 attitudes towards authority, 17–18, 71, 248–53, 255–6 characterised in literature, 187–8, 190, 249–50, 251, 252–3, 254, 255–8 and economic expansion, 80 ‘Peasants’ Revolt’ (1381), 249–50 The Peerage of Ireland (1754), 89–90 Pembroke, castle, 45 countess of, Marie de Chˆatillon-St-Pol, 170–1, 173 earldom of, 131 peoples, identity of, 14, 20–1, 24–5, 36, 52–67, 68–84, 85–97, 98, 139–52, 181–94, 203–10, 212 ‘chosen’, 58–9 periphery, see core

Index Perth, 32, 111 Philip IV, king of France, 169 Philip VI, king of France, 167 Phythian-Adam, Charles, 114 Picts, 25–6, 64 ‘Pilgrimage of Grace for the Commonwealth’ (1536–7), 252–3 Pippin III, king of the Franks, 14 poetry, 35, 250 see also Wales, poetry of Poland, Polish, 42 Pollard, Tony, 232 Pomerania, 42 Popham, Sir John, 177 Poulton, Cheshire, abbey of, 200–1 power, 11–12, 14–15, 16, 27, 141, 236–8 Powys, 200, 201, 202 government, rulers in, 42 links with England, 200–1 see also Madog ap Maredudd, king of race, 96–7 rebellion, rebels, 12, 22, 227, 243–4, 249–54, 255–6 Reformation, 225, 257, 260 regions, 27–31 see also identities, of regions; goverment, regional religion, see the Church Remigius, saint, 61 ‘repopulation’ (in Spain), see colonization, in Spain representation, representatives, 13, 243, 245, 248–50, 253–4, 255, 259 see also assemblies Reuter, Timothy, 19 Reynolds, Susan, 244, 246 Rhine, Rhineland, 27, 29, 165, 168–9 Rhuddlan, 195, 199 Statute of, see Wales, statutes concerning Rhys, the Lord, of Deheubarth, 40, 43, 134 Richard ‘the Lionheart’, king of England, 129 Richard II, king of England, 176, 228 and Cheshire, 202, 209 wife of, Anne of Bohemia, 176–7 Richard III, king of England, 240 as duke of Gloucester, 227, 229, 237, 238–9 Rickman, Thomas, 91 Riga, 30 Robert I, king of Scotland, 154–5, 159 Robert II, king of Scotland, Robert Stewart, 162 romances, 48, 166 Rome, 25, 32, 34, 35

281

Christian Church of, 25–6, 34, 55, 60–2 see also Church Roxburgh, 32, 111 Ruaidri Ó Conchobhair, king of Connacht, 133 Ruhr region, 26–7 Russell, John, bishop of Lincoln, 251, 259 Russia, 30, 32 Ruthin, Rhuthun, 188, 215 St Andrews, 32 St Davids, 32 Sánchez Albornoz, Claudio, 70–3, 77 sanctuaries, 114 ‘Saracens’, 81–2 Saxons, 54–5, 58, 62 see also England, English Schwabenspiegel, 17 Scotland, Scots, 28–9, 32, 42, 49, 98–124 baronies/parishes of, 100–1, 113, 115–24 Church in, 101, 114, 177 government in, 99–101, 113, 161–2 Highlands, 161–2, 163 historiography, history of, 98–9 native earldoms and lordships of, 99, 105–7, 110–11, 112–13, 120–1, 122–3, 161 relations with England, 156–7, 163, 211, 218, 219 royal lands in, 99, 100, 108–11, 112–13, 122–4 Scots in England, 213–25 see also ‘Gaelicization’; ‘Normanization’; Flemings in Scotland; Welsh in Scotland; Scots in England Scott, Sir Walter, 87–8 le Scrope, Geoffrey, chief justice, 150 Serbia, Serbs, 28 Shagan, Ethan, 243–4, 253 Sheen, Charterhouse at, 177, 179 Shrewsbury, 207 Shropshire, 214, 220 Skelton, John, poet, 255–7, 260 slavery, 40 Smalley, Beryl, 229 Smiles, Samuel, 86–7, 88 Smith, Goldwin, 86 Smith, Sir Thomas, 260 Snowdon, 50 The Song of Dermot and the Earl, 85, 86, 134 Southampton, 216, 221–2 Spain, Spanish, 28, 68–84 Christianity in, 34, 75–8, 81–2 historiography, history of, 68–80, 83–4 ‘Reconquista’, 68, 78

282 Spain, Spanish, (cont.) see also Islam; Judaism Stacey, Robin C., 48 Stapeldon, Walter, 170 Starkey, Thomas, 256, 257, 258 Stephen, king of England, 198 Steward, Sir John, and family, 220 Stirling, 111 Strathclyde, kingdom of, 98, 99, 109, 112, 114, 124 taxation, 132 Tegeingl, 198, 202 Teiﬁ, river, 30 Tewkesbury, battle of, 230, 236, 237, 238 thanes, thanages, 110–11, 121, 123 Thierry, Augustin, 87–8, 94, 96 Thomas, Keith, 263 Thomond, 160 Tigernach, Annals of, 85 Tipperary, liberty of, 132–3, 135 towns, distribution of, 27–9, 44 government of, 18–19, 143–4, 245–8 immigrants in, 212, 215–25 social make-up of, 246–8 Towton, battle of, 233, 237, 240, 241 treason, traitors, 227, 230–1, 252–3 Trim, liberty of, 133–4, 135–6, 161 see also de Geneville Troy, Trojans, 33 Tudor, Tudur, family, Henry, see Henry VII Owain, Owen, 236 uchelwyr, see gentry Uí Bhriain, O’Briens, family, 160 Uí Chonchobhair, O’Connors, family, 133, 160 Uí Néill, O’Neills, family, 160 Domnall O’Néill, Donal O’Neill, 155 Ullmann, Walter, 12 Ulster, 160 earldom of, 158, 163, see also de Burgh kingdom of 130, 131 Union, Act of (1536), see Wales, statutes concerning Urban II, pope, 33 Usk, Thomas, 247 Valence, Joan de, 132 Valenciennes, 165, 169 Venice, 18–19, 30 Vikings, 28

Index Visigoths, in Spain, 70, 72 Vortigern, 58 Wakeﬁeld, battle of, 229, 233, 236, 239 Wales, Welsh, 28, 29, 32 historiography, history of, 3, 9, 23, 36, 37–8, 127, 139–40, 145, 150, 151, 181, 195–6, 206 poetry of, 46–7, 49, 183–90, 198, 206–7 post-conquest, boroughs, 143–4, 145 culture, 184–94 jurisdictional position, 145–52 March, Marches of, 21, 44, 125–7, 130–2, 134, 137–8, 143, 147–50, 161, 163, 213 Principality of, 21, 127, 131, 134, 138, 143, 144 tenure in, 142–3 Welsh regarded as aliens, 140–5, 208 pre-conquest, attacks on England, 195–200, 203, 205 custom, law and culture in, 46–51, 182–4, 192–3 military forces in, 41, 46 princes of, see individual names rule in, 37–51, 127, 129, 137–8 statutes concerning, ‘Wales’ or ‘Rhuddlan’ (1284), 141–2, 143, 151–2 (1401), 144–5, 208–9 ‘Union’ (1536–43), 139, 140, 145, 151, 225 Welsh in England, 195, 203–10, 213–25 Welsh in Scotland, 98, 111, 112, 114, 119–20, 124 see also law, Welsh law Walsingham, Thomas, 249, 250 Wars of the Roses, 226–41 Warwick, Richard Neville, earl of, ‘the Kingmaker’, 229, 231, 232–3, 235–6, 238, 239, 251 family of, 234 Waterford, 202 Waugh, Scott L., 156, 163 Welldon Finn, Rex, 195–6 Wenlock, John, Lord, 230–2, 235–6 Werburgh, saint, 196, 197, 198 abbey of, 196, 198, 203 Westminster, abbey of, 226–7 Wexford, 129, 132, 133, 202 Whitby, Synod of, 26 ‘Wich’, battle of, 198, 200 Wickham, Chris, 80 Wilfrid, saint, 26, 34

Index William the Conqueror, king of England, 67, 128 William I, king of Scotland, 99, 101, 105, 110, 113, 119, 122 William of Avesnes, count of Hainault and Holland, 165, 169, 171 William of Malmesbury, 41, 90 William of Tyre, 28 Winifred, saint, see Holywell

283

Wipo, 14 Worcester, John Tiptoft, earl of, 227, 229, 233–6, 237 York, city, 18, 218–19, 238, 247 House of, 234–5, 237–8, 240 Richard, duke of, 230, 232–3, 251 see also Edward IV